1920-04-15

SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS.


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):: I desire, with the permission of the House, to move:
That a message he sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that this House will unite with the Senate in the appointment of a Joint committee of both Houses to consider and report upon the desirability of uniting certain branches of the two Houses performing similar duties, and particularly the Law Branch, the Law Translation Branch, and the Debates Translation Branch; and if in the opinion of the committee it is desirable to unite any of the branches, to submit a scheme therfor; and that the following members will act on the

part of the House of Commons on the said joint committee: Messieurs Maclean (Halifax), Thompson (Yukon), Stewart (Lanark), Boland (Beauoe), Lapointe (Quebec East.)
The resolution explains itself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of Explosives Division, Department of Mines.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
A message from the Administrator of the Government transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1921, was presented by Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance):: I beg to move for leave to introduce Bill No. 58, to amend the Civil Service Insurance Act, pursuant to resolution adopted by the House on Thursday last.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am not altogether sure, notwithstanding the fact that the resolution has been adopted, that notice should not be given of this motion. However, the House will no doubt give unanimous consent to the introduction of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Has any petition been sent to the Soldiers' Settlement Board's branoh at Quebec, relative to the granting of certain colonization lots in the County of Montmagny to returned soldiers?
2.	If so, has it been transferred by the proper person to the head office at Ottawa?
3.	Has this petition been received at Ottawa, and when will an answer be given?
4.	Does the Soldiers' Settlement Board intend to follow the suggestions made by its superintendent at Quebec, Major John Roy, and what are these suggestions?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	It is not known at head office whether or not a petition has been sent to the Soldier Settlement Board branch at Quebec, relative to the granting of certain colonization lots in the County of Montmagny to returned soldiers.
79}
2.	No such petition has been forwarded to the head office of the Board at Ottawa.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.


QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What is the total amount expended and charged to Capital Account for the construction- of the Quebec bridge?
2.	What is the mileage of railways constructed in connection therewith?
3.	What is the cost of construction of railways referred to?
4.	In the amount charged to Capital Account, has any amount been included as having been paid under paragraph IS of the agreement forming the schedule to the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company Act, Chapter 54, 1903? If so, what amount and what are the details?
5.	Has interest been included in the amount charged to Capital Account?
6.	If so, what amount and at what rate is it computed?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	$21,707,889.34.
2.	None.
3.	Answered by No. 2.	'	N
4.	(a) $6,424,781.
(b)
Principal	$5,016,453	66Special account	.	.	. .	162,360	46
Accrued interest on
principal	 800,454	15
Accrued interest on
special account	. .	13,560	48
Interest on accrued
interest	 75,673	18

Remu ne r a t i o n to Royal Trust Company of Montreal, on account bond issue for 1908 ....
To cash (under Edw.
VII, 1903, Cap. 54,
Schedule Clause 18), indemnity to shareholders, (Int. to Dec. 1,	1908)
at 5 per cent (interest $65,209.07).
Royal Trust Co., remuneration as trusted of the Quebec Bridge & Railway Company's bond issue

5.	Only with respect to amount stated in answer to No. 4.
v 6. (a) $954,896.88; (b) 5 per cent.


SURPLUS ARMY STORES.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigoriish and Guys-borough):: 1.	How much has been realized from sale of surplus army stores since the Armistice?

2.	What was the initial cost of the property so sold?
3.	Were all sales made hy public auction dr public tender?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	$6,775,705.26; sold through the War Purchasing Commission.
2.	It is considered that it would be quite impossible to give even an approximately correct answer to question No. 2 as it now stands. The prices originally paid by the department for many of the surplus stores sold varied greatly from time to time. For instance, the prices paid by the department for army boots ranged from $4 to $6 during the term of the war, and the selling price bore no necessary relation to the cost price. This applies also to underwear, blankets, socks and many other items. It is possible to give the maximum and minimum prices originally paid for each article sold as surplus, but the record of the purchase of each article will have to be perused. It will take months to prepare such a statement.
3.	The War Purchasing Commission is responsible for the method of selling, and prices at which sales are made, and authorized the sales.
The answer in one word to the third question would be "no," but this would not give a fair impression as to the methods adopted for selling, and the following reply is therefore suggested:-
"Practically all goods have been offered for sale by tender. Advertisements were inserted in all daily and trade papers, and besides sending tender forms to those answering these advertisements, forms were also distributed over a wide mailing list covering all parts of Canada. The prices tendered, however, in some cases were so low that they had to be rejected and the goods offered for sale at a fixed price by circulars which were given a wide distribution.
"Since the end of January, sales have been largely conducted by price lists, as announced by advertisement.
"Sales at fixed prices have also been made to Dominion, Provincial and Municipal Government Departments, hospitals, charitable and philanthropic institutions, and to returned soldiers and sailors, widows and dependents of soldiers and sailors.
"Large advertisements informing the public as to the methods of sale were inserted in all daily and trade papers in the spring of 1919, early winter 1919, and February of this year."


C.G.S. CANADA.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Have instructions been issued by the Naval Department to their officials that the C.G.S. Canada, used in the fishery service, is to be sold?
2.	If so, what is the reason for disposing of this vessel?
3.	What price is being asked for said vessel?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to replace this vessel, and what would be the estimated cost of a steamer to replace the Canada.


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	No instructions have been issued that the C.G.S. Canada is to be sold.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1:
4.	The C.G.S. Canada has been replaced by the C.G.S. Hochelaga.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER POWER DEVELOPMENT.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Referring to answers given in the House on April 12, instant, by the President of the Privy Council relative to power development and canalization of the St. Lawrence river, on what date was an engineer appointed by the Canadian Government to act with the engineer appointed by the United States Government?
2.	What is the name of the engineer so appointed by the Canadian Government?
3.	Were other engineers recommended to the Canadian Government for appointment? If so, what are their names and addresses?
4.	By whom were such other engineers recommended ?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	The appointment of the engineer was approved by Council on April 9. The Order in Council was approved by the administrator on the 14th.
2.	W. A. Bowden, chief engineer, Department of Railways and Canals.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


BATISCAN RIVER..
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DESLAURiIERS:
1.	Does the Government intend to alter the channel at the mouth of the Batiscan river?
2.	If so, what are the alterations?
3.	Who asked for same?
4.	Have the plans been prepared and by whom ?
5.	What are the estimated costs of the proposed works?
6.	Are the works to be begun soon?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by answer to question under No. 1.
3.	No request received.
4.	5 and 6. Answered by the above.


ST. VALIER WHARF.
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Has the Honourable Acting Minister of Public Works received a petition signed bylarge numbers regarding the wharf at St. Valier, county of Bellechasse, P.Q., requesting the reconstruction of the wharf, which was badly damaged two years ago?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to accede to the request, and order such repairs before the wharf is a complete ruin.


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Matter under consideration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	When was work under present scheme of development of Toronto harbour commenced?
2.	How many miles of docks were included in this scheme and how much of this work has been completed?
3.	What is the depth of water provided1 by this scheme?
4.	What has been the expenditure by the Dominion Government on this scheme for each year since the commencement of the work?
5.	What is the number of ships and tonnage entered into and cleared from this hajjoour each year since 1912?
6.	What is the amount of water-borne freight imported and exported to and from this harbour since 1912?
7.	What reduction, if any, in freight rates on goods entering and leaving Toronto by rail has been secured by reason of the harbour improvements in question?
8.	What is the extent of land1 reclamation in connection with this scheme?
9.	Who is the owner of this land and what is the policy of the Government relative thereto?
10.	What is the depth of the St. Lawrence canals and of the Welland canal?


Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	What was the value in Canadian currency of the British pound sterling on the first of the months of November and December, 1914, on the first of all the months of the years 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, and on the first of January and February, 1919?
2.	During the years 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 were the officers and men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force paid1 in accordance with the rates of exchange prevailing at the various times at which payments were made to them; and if not, at what rate or rates?
3.	What was done in this respect with payments made to interned Canadian soldiers, and at what rate or rates was their pay converted into the currencies of the countries in which they were interned?



PURCHASING BOARD FOR CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister) gave notice that tomorrow he would move in Committee of the Whole a resolution to constitute a board to be called the Purchasing Board for Canada.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. LAVIGUEUR.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec County):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the House, I rise to a question of privilege. I wish to draw to the attention of the House a certain article which has appeared in all the newspapers of this country. This article, as published in the Quebec Daily Chronicle of the 13th instant, reads:
Judge Lennox makes unfortunate remark. Learning that witness could not speak English, said he ought to be deported. Montreal Quebec, April 12-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the article in question refer to the hon. member?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The article is an insult to the French population of this country.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman would not be in ordeT in bringing up such a matter as a question of privilege.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I bow to your ruling, Sir.



LETTER CARRIERS' SALARIES.

[Stage Direction]
i
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CHARLES SHEARD (Toronto South):: 
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Council):: The Government has made
answer to the request, and it is necessary that I should state the request so that the House will understand the answer. Under the old classification, the maximum and minimum salaries of the letter carriers were $939 and $636 respectively. Under the new classification the maximum and minimum will be $1,260 and $780 respectively. Both these figures are apart from the bonus. In the application of the classification the letter carriers who were receiving the maximum of the old classification, namely, $939, receive under the new classification the' salary at the-scale next above that which they were receiving, namely, $1,020, so that all who were receiving $939, the maximum under the old classification, will start in at $1,020 under the new classification as of April 1, 1919. But where men had been in

receipt of the maximum for five years and had, therefore, not received any statutory increases they will be moved up one step further, and instead of receiving $1,020, the will start in at $1,140, and as the classification is to be made retroactive to the 1st April, 1919, that means that they will start in at $1,140 as from the 1st April of last year. Those who have not been in receipt of the maximum for five years will start in at $1,020. The delegation that waited on the Government represented men who had attained the maximum, but had not enjoyed it for a period of five years. They made two requests, first, that all who had attained the maximum under the old classification should immediately be given the maximum under the new. That is, they should be moved up from $939 to $1,260, as from April 1, 1919, which with the married man's bonus would make a total of $1,656 for last year, or in the alternative, if they did not get the maximum under the new classification as of 1st April, 1919, those who had attained the maximum under the old classification, whether they had served five years or notr should start in at $1,140 as from the 1st April, 1919, which would give them with the married man's bonus $1,656 for this year. The Government could not see its way clear to comply with either request, and so advised the letter carriers. As already intimated if they were married men or heads of households, they received in addition to salary, $420 as a bonus last year, if unmarried the single man's bonus, both of which will be continued during the current year. The men who waited on the Government will receive this year $1,140 in salary as they will move up one step in the classification owing to its being made retroactive to the 1st April, 1919, and, if they are married men or heads of households, they will be entitled to a bonus of $420, making their salary and bonus $1,560, and if unmarried, $1,332. The Government felt that, in justice to the other branches of the service and in view of the charges upon the public treasury, that amount was reasonable compensation for the service rendered. The Government further thought that the men who had served for five years at the old maximum and who, during that period of five years, had not received any statutory increase, were entitled to the special recognition of being moved one step in advance of those who had not had that long period of service and these men if married will receive this year $1,656. If unmarried $1,422.
It was also explained to the letter carriers, and I think I should mention it to the fMr. Rowell.]
House that the effect of dating the reclassification back to the 1st April, 1919, means that the civil servants will, for the year 1919, receive a sum of approximately $4,000,000 more than they received under the old classification, and that sum will have to be provided for by Estimates this session in order to pay them that additional amount with respect to last year's work.


Mr. T. J. STEWAKT:: I understood that ,all the letter carriers who were getting $939 ,and $1,020, and who had been given no in-,crease for the five years previous went Jto $1,140


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If the hon. member wishes to submit a question to the Government, that is one thing, but if he wishes to submit his opinion with ' respect to a statement made by the minister he is certainly not in order.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I do not know,
Mr. Speaker, whether you understood me aright or not. I wanted to know with reference to what the minister stated


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The minister's statement stands for what it is worth. .


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Am I not in order in giving my interpretation


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman would be in order in putting his own interpretation on a statement made by the ^Minister, but certainly nut upon the Orders of the Day.



ALLEGED STATEMENT BY JUSTICE LENNOX.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. C. A. IGAUVREAU (Temiscouata) (translation.):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Minister of Justice whether it is his intention to 'have an inquiry made about the insulting remarks of Justice Lennox, or at least to ask him a report stating whether it is true or not that he has uttered those words?


Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) (translation.):: I shall make inquiry about the facts connected with the incident referred to by the hon. member. But I may say that judges are not under the jurisdiction of the (Minister of Justice and he has no authority to tell them what they should say or what they should not say.


Mr. LAPOINTE (translation.) :: 
Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Would the Minister of Justice
give some explanation of his statement to the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Gauvreau) ?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The minister has made his statement. [DOT]



RURAL MAIL CARRIERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: I should like to inquire of the Government whether in view of the enormous increase in the cost of carrying on, it is intended to grant the rural mail carriers a bonus in addition to the price mentioned in the contracts which they' took a few years ago.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The question
which my hon. friend has asked is one on which the Government has not been called upon to form an opinion this session, but I will explain the situation as I understand it. Where any contract was taken before the war or in the earlier years of the war, at a time when prices were substantially lower than they are to-day, the Post Office Department permits that contract to be re-advertised wherever the contractor desires that that should be done, and then a new contract is let, presumably at the current rates. I understand that in many cases the mail carriers have asked that their contracts should be terminated, and that advertisements should be issued and new tenders called for. In such cases new tenders have been called for, and when the new contract is made the old contract is terminated. So far as I am aware the Post Office Department has not up to this time seen its way clear to depart from that arrangement, which still prevails.
,	i



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 55, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
Mr. CANNON:: Explain.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The explanation is always given on the introduction of the Bill. The Bill contains only one line.


Lucien Cannon: I was not here on the
first reading of the Bill, and I should be glad if the minister would give an explanation.


Arthur Meighen: All the Bill does is to [DOT] extend the privileges that were granted to enlisted men in respect to residence duties on homesteads, to those who enlisted with an Associated Power, as well as those who enlisted with an Allied Power.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
On section 1-additional definition.
Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that
this clause stand for the reason that I will give. I wish to move in committee that Bill No. 35, which is already in committee with all clauses passed, be consolidated with this Bill, with the result that there will be only one Bill, Bill No. 55, sections
1, 2 and 3 of Bill No. 35 becoming sections
2, 3 and 4 of Bill No. 55. Section 1 of Bill 35 will be amended accordingly, it not being necessary to repeat the words " Section 16 of the Dominion Lands Act," it should simply read " Section 16 of the said Act as amended."


Mr. McKENZIE:: The amendment just
proposed appears to be very simple, but I should like to know what its full effect will be.


Arthur Meighen: Ever since the war the department has been empowered by section 2 of the Dominion Lands Act to count the period of service of an enlisted man as residence on his homestead, and in the event of his coming back permanently disabled, so as not to be capable of working, to give him his patent; similarly, to give patent on behalf of the man who was killed or who died on active service. That privilege was extended statutorily to members of any of the allied forces, but, of course, the Department of Justice advised that members of the American army were not members of an allied force, and consequently they have had to be denied this special concession of section 2. The effect of this provision is simply to enable us to include them as well as members of any of the other allied forces, who are virtually in precisely the same position as the American army.


Mr. FIELDING:: As a matter of curiosity rather than one of any importance, I may ask my hon. friend if there is any real line of distinction between the allied powers and the associated powers. All through fthe Peace Treaty they are spoken of as " The Allied and Associated Powers," and I do not know if we have had any precise definition as to the distinction, if there is a distinction.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: It was the desire of the United States to be termed an associated power.


Arthur Meighen: I am sure I do not know why they called themselves an "associated" rather than "allied" power, but inasmuch as they did, the provisions of the Act as it stood could not apply to members of the American army.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that we are about to consolidate Bills 35 and 55 now?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Mr. MURPHY:: Not having at hand the Dominion Lands Act, may I ask the minister to be kind enough to explain the effect of the amendment made by section 2 of Bill 35?


Arthur Meighen: The Dominion Lands Act was amended a year ago so as to provide that an alien entrant, though he could not naturalize now under the Naturalization Act, could go before a judge and obtain a certificate to a certain effect set out in the Act, that he was entitled to naturalization but for the provisions of the new section of the Naturalization Act; and if he were not entitled to naturalization under the law apart from that provision, the judge would certify why he was not so entitled. That had to be done; otherwise a man who came . in here under a certain state of the Naturalization Act and took homestead entry would have to remain for years out of his patent. Now, it seems quite right that a man should go before a judge and show that he has those qualities of citizenship that entitle him to naturalization, but it does not seem fair that he should be compelled to have reached that stage of literacy which was not compulsory under the law as it stood when he took entry. Consequently, if the only reason why a man cannot get his certificate is his inability to speak French or English, we do not wish to keep him out of his patent, and the effect of this provision is to enable us to give him that patent.	.


The CHAIRMAN:: In regard to the motion to consolidate the two Bills, I find, on repair. Melghen.]
ference to Bourinot and May, that an instruction from the House is necessary to enable the committee to divide a Bill into two or more Bills, to consolidate two Bills into one Bill, or to give priority to the consideration of a portion of a Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I simply followed the recommendation of Parliamentary Counsel, who sent me a note to the effect that the Bills could be consolidated in committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: This can be done when the committee has been so instructed by the House. May says very clearly:
An instruction is necessary to enable a committee to divide a Bill into two or more Bills, to consolidate two Bills into one Bill, or to give priority to the consideration of a portion of a Bill, with power to report the same separately to the House.
And Bourinot, at page 525, says:
A committee may, in conformity with instructions, consolidate two Bills into one or divide one Bill into two or more.
The committee has no instructions from the House to consolidate the two Bills now under consideration, and I would suggest, in order that we may proceed in strict conformity with the practice as laid down by the authorities cited, that progress be reported, and that a motion be made to instruct the committee to consolidate the Bills.


Arthur Meighen: I move, then, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise and report progress, and beg leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.


Arthur Meighen: I move, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, that we return to the Order of Motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: I move, Mr. Speaker, that instruction be given by this House to the Committee of the Whole now considering Bills Nos. 35 and 55, that it have power to consolidate the same into one Bill bearing No. 55.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
House again in committee on Bill No. 55, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Arthur Meighen: I move that Bills Nos.
35 and 55 be consolidated as one Bill under the title, " An Act to amend the Dominion Lands -Vet," clause 1 of Bill No. 55 remaining clause 1 of the new Bill; clause 1 of Bill No. 35 to be clause 2; clause 2 of Bill No. 35 to be clause 3; and clause 3 of Bill 35 to be clause 4; with the further provision

that clause 2 of the new Bill be amended by striking out the words " The Dominion Lands Act, Chapter 20 of the Statutes of 1908," and substituting therefor the words,
" the said Act
, Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
GRAND TRUNK ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT.	_



BIL.L TO CONFIRM THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) moved the second reading of Bill No. 54, to confirm the Agreement dated eighth day of March, 1920, between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for the acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the said Grand Trunk Railway Company, except the four per cent guaranteed stock.
Hon. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: Before going on with the discussion might I call my hon. friend's attention to the circumstance that last evening I asked the right hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) when all the correspondence between the Government, the Grand Trunk and its subsidiary companies, in reference to the agreement which is now before Parliament, would be brought down. That correspondence has not been brought down as yet, we have had no chance to read or study it and I think under the circumstances it is proper and fair to ask the minister not to press the second reading until we have had a chance to see it.


Mr. REID :: The correspondence in
reference to the Bill consists of two letters that I received from the Grand Trunk Company in so far as the Bill is concerned but I assume that the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) wants all the correspondence from the time the agreement was forwarded to England. I have that here; in fact I have all the correspondence between the different departments in connection with the agreement from the time it was prepared and forwarded to the High Commissioner in England. The correspondence consists of a few letters and cables and I could read them to the House without any trouble at all. If the leader of the Opposition insists on not going on to-day until the correspondence is printed I will certainly 'agree. In addition to the two letters that have been sent there are a number of affidavits that were necessary to be taken by officials of
the Grand Trunk to show that the meeting in England was carried out in accordance with the by-laws of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The other correspondence is not very lengthy. I would like to go on with the Bill if possible because of the urgency of proceeding with the agreemfcnt and of carrying it out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have no
desire to delay the consideration of this measure. If the minister agrees to read to the House the correspondence and says that it includes all that there has been between the Government and any parties with reference to the agreement which is dealt with by this Bill, I think we will be quite prepared to listen to what he has to say and then if it appears that there is nothing essential in the correspondence we can proceed. But if the correspondence discloses some matters that are pertinent and .which fwe ought to consider before ratifying .this measure we shall ask a delay so that ,we may have opportunity to study the correspondence.


John Dowsley Reid: That is quite satisfactory, I do not wish to press the Bill if the leader of the Opposition feels that there should be delay after hearing the correspondence we have had. The only correspondence that I can find that we have had in connection with it is that which has taken place with the Justice Department and with the Department of Railways. When the leader of the Opposition hears the correspondence he will realize that there is not likely to be any further correspondence than that which I have here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had thought yesterday of putting in a formal notice of motion for the production of
A copy of all correspondence between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or any of the subsidiary companies, or shareholders, representatives, solicitors, or other persons connected therewith, in relation to the agreement between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, under the Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Act, 1919. or with respect to any proceedings arising from said agreement.
I took advantage of the opportunity to ask the Acting Prime Minister when the correspondence would be brought down. If .what the minister has, includes all that would he covered by that motion, it will be perfectly satisfactory to us to-have Mm proceed.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as I know it includes everything the leader of the Opposition asks for. The Acting Prime Minister drew my

attention to the request of the leader of the Opposition and I have had the Department of Justice and the Department of Railways and Canals proceed with the making oi copies of everything that they could find in connection with it. I would like to proceed with the Bill and make some progress. It is for the purpose of correcting two small errors that were made in the schedule to the agreement as presented to Parliament last session. There is a second clause which sufficiently ratifies the agreement that was made last year in addition to the correction of these two errors. The reason I am bringing the Bill before Parliament is this: The Grand Trunk Company noticed that they had omitted to mention one railway in the schedule and they had made a mistake in describing the other.
They made a mistake in not including Vermont and Province Line railway, which is only a small line some three miles long. Another mistake was made by stating in the agreement that the Pembroke Southern Railway Company was controlled by lease, whereas it is controlled by stock ownership majority. In this connection I received the following letter from Mr. W. H. Biggar, *solicitor for the Grand Trunk Railway system.
Montreal, March 17, 1920.. Major G. A. Bell, C.M.G.,
Deputy Minister, Department of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa. Canada.
Dear Sir,-A careful check of the companies enumerated in the first schedule of the agreement between the Company and the Government reveals two slight errors. The Vermont and Province Line, extending from the Canadian boundary to Albrugh Junction, 3.16 miles, is omitted from the list. This line is the property formerly operated in connection with the Canada Atlantic railway and is owned by the Vermont and Province Line Railroad Company, the capital stock of which ($200,000) is now owned by this company. The schedule also shows the Pembroke and Southern Railway Company as controlled by lease, whereas it is controlled through the ownership of a majority of the capital stock of the Pembroke Southern Railway Company.
Tours faithfully.
W. H. Biggar.
Major Bell handed the foregoing letter to me. I then sent for Mr. Kelley, president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and discussed the matter with him. I also discussed it with the Department of Justice, Mr. Kelley being present, and the Department of Justice could not see any other way of correcting these errors in the schedule than by introducing and passing through

Parliament a Bill adding the Vermont and Province Line railway in the schedule and correcting the error so far as ownership of the other line was concerned. If we were of our own motion to make these changes, it would also be necessary to have another meeting of the shareholders of the company to confirm the changes, and that would involve considerable delay. After drawing the attention of Mr. Kelley to this situation he proceeded to Montreal and took the matter up with Mr. Biggar and other legal gentlemen concerned, and afterwards wrote me the following letter:



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.

[Stage Direction]
Montreal, Que., April 7. 1920. The Hon. J. D. Reid, M.D., M.P.,
Minister of Railways and Canals.
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Referring to Mr. Biggar's letter of March 17th last, addressed to the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, calling attention to certain errors in the first schedule to the agreement which has been executed between the Government and the Grand Trunk under [he authority of the Grand Trunk Acquisition Act, 1919, I consider it advisable that the errors in the schedule should be corrected by legislation; and the provisions of the enclosed Bill which has been drafted for that purpose are satisfactory to this company.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Howard G. Kelley, President.
That is the reason I have introduced this Bill and why I would like to have it passed by Parliament.
The second clause of the agreement is for the purpose of ratifying the corrections of the errors made and dispensing with another meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company o which would otherwise be necessary for the purpose of obtaining their ratification. Of course we ratify the whole agreement under that clause, thus precluding the possibility of any question being raised in the future in connection with this matter. The leader of the Opposition asked for all papers and correspondence in connection with the subject. I have now before me the whole correspondence, covering the period from the time the agreement was completed and forwarded to England to be approved by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and as that correspondence is not very long and explains succinctly the whole situation I will, with the approval of the House read it. The first letter, dated January 22, 1920, was written by myself to Sir George Perley, High Commissioner, London, and is as follows:

Enc. Certified Copy of O.C.
6 copies of agreement, and copy of Act.
January 22, 1920.
Dear Sir George:-
I enclose herewith a certified copy of an Order in Council of the 31st December, ultimo (P.C. 2504), authorizing execution on behalf of His Majesty of the agreement proposed to be entered into with the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada under the terms of the Act passed by Parliament at its last session entitled " An Act respecting the acquisition by His Majesty of the Grand Trunk Railway system." You will observe that this Order in Council provides as follows:
' That he (the Minister of Railways and Canals) be authorized also to deposit with the High Commissioner for Canada in London, England, a number (approximately six) of executed originals of the said agreement, and to instruct the High Commissioner to permit the proper officers of the Grand Trunk to inspect such executed originals at any time, and also to permit such officers to execute on behalf of the Grand Trunk the originals so deposited after ratification of the said agreement by a majority in voting power of the holders of the stock enumerated in the preamble to the said Act present in person, or by proxy, and voting at a special meeting of stock holders, duly called for the purpose of considering such agreement.
That he (the Minister of Railways and Canals) be authorized also to instruct the said High Commissioner upon satisfying himself that the said meeting was duly held, and the said agreement duly ratified and the signing officers duly authorized to execute the said agreement under the seal of the Grand Trunk, and that the said agreement has been duly executed to deliver to the said officers signing the agreement on behalf of the Grand Trunk, or either of them, two executed originals of the said agreement as executed, returning to the minister three originals, as executed, and retaining one executed original for the files of his office for the examination and inspection of all parties concerned.
Six copies of this agreement have been executed on behalf of His Majesty and the same are herewith enclosed in order that the provisions of the Order in Council above quoted may be carried out by you.
For your information, I enclose. herewith a copy of the Act referred to.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) J. D. Reid.
I again wrote Sir George Perley next day to the following effect:
January 23, 1920.
Dear Sir George:-
Adverting to my letter to you of the 22nd January, 1920, enclosing a certified copy of the Order in Council passed on the 31st December ultimo, under the provisions of the Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Act, 1919, and also enclosing six executed originals of the Arbitration Agreement to be dealt with under the provisions of the said Order, I omitted to mention that it is expedient that, in acting under the provisions of the Order, you should be advised, in every step taken, by competent legal
authority. For instance, your legal representatives should advise you that the meeting referred to in the Order in Council was duly called and duly held, that the agreement was duly ratified and the signing officers were duly authorized to execute and that the said agreement was duly executed. I would like to suggest that your legal representative, by arrangement with the Grand Trunk, should actually attend the meeting and collaborate with the Grand Trunk authorities in assuring himself that all necessary steps are properly taken.
Parliament has authorized an appropriation out of which all expenditures so occasioned may be defrayed.
You will also be good enough to arrange that the date of the executed originals of the agreement be made concurrent with the execution thereof by the Grand Trunk authorities.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) J. D. Reid.
The Rt. Hon. Sir George H. Perley,

[Stage Direction]
High Commissioner for Canada,
London, England.
Then, on March 20th the following letter was written by Mr. Bell to Mr. Newcombe:
Referring to your letter of the 16th of March instant relative to instructions to the High Commissioner in London in connection with the Grand Trunk acquisition agreement and the regularity of the shareholders' meeting of the 19th ultimo, I beg to say that any messages which have been sent by the High Commissioner to this department have been taken up with your minister either direct or through Council. The only communication that has been forwarded to the High Commissioner on the subject from this department is a cable, a copy of which is enclosed herewith, and which was, it is understood, drafted in your department.
On March 22nd the fallowing letter was sent by Mr. Bell to Mr. Newcombe:
Referring to your conversation over the telephone with my minister this morning, I beg to enclose herewith further copies of correspondence relative to the taking over of the Grand Trunk Railway system.
On March 18th the following telegram was addressed to the Justice Department:
London, March 18.
Grand Trunk papers mentioned yours fifth mailed yesterday.
On March 17th Sir George Perley wrote it he Minister of Justice as follows:
Dear Mr. Doherty,
With reference to the agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the six copies of the document have been sealed by the chairman and the secretary, and three copies have been sent to Mr. Reid by to-day's mail with copies of the correspondence which has taken place with Sir Charles Russell dealing fully with the point he raised as to the sufficiency of the notice calling the special general meeting. Two of the other copies will be retained until you have decided the question and will be handed to the Grand Trunk Company when authority is received that this may be done. The sixth copy will be filed in this office.
[Stage Direction]
With the copies of the agreement I am sending to Mr. Reid the Statutory Declaration and other documents relating to the convening of the meeting.
The request contained in your cablegram of the 5th instant that the company should state the grounds justifying the omission to notify the Great Western stockholders, is dealt with in the correspondence.
Tours faithfully,
(Sgd) George H. Perley.
Lucien Cannon: Before the minister goes further, may I inquire in what capacity Sir Charles Russell acted? His name is mentioned in that letter.


John Dowsley Reid: He was the legal representative in England of the Dominion Government. I suppose he was appointed by the Justice Department or by the High Commissioner; I cannot say which.
On March 7th a letter was written by Mr. Biggar to Mr. Bell; I read it a few minutes ago. Mr. Nowcomhe wrote Mr. Bell on March 16th as follows:
Dear Mr. Bell,
Some messages have been passing recently with the High Commissioner in London with regard to the Grand Trunk Acquisition Agreement and the regularity of the shareholders' meeting of the 19th ultimo, from which it would 6eem that the High Commissioner has received, or considers that he has received, some instructions to proceed dependent upon the validity of the meeting ratifying the agreement. So far as I am aware, or have been able to ascertain, the High Commissioner has received no instructions, and moreover I do not perceive that there was any occasion for instructing him. X shall be glad however if you will let me know whether possibly any instructions went direct from your department to the High Commissioner, and if so, I should like to have a copy for the information of the Minister of Justice.
On March 15>th I wrote Hon. Mr. Doherty as follows:
Enclosed please find copy of a cable received from Sir George Perley. Will you kindly let me know if I am to send an answer and if so, what is necessary.
The following message was sent to Sir George Perley on the-13th of March: Dominion,
London.
Your message twelfth Grand Trunk. Validity of meeting will be considered here when certified papers arrive. Meantime no proceeding required on your part. You should await further instructions.
That was in reply to a message sent by Sir George Perley on March 12.


Lucien Cannon: Were the certified papers mentioned in that cable received?


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the correspondence will show that; if not, I shall be glad

to give the information after I have read all the correspondence. The following was the message sent by Sir George Perley on March 12:
London, March 12, 1920. Railways and Canals,
Ottawa.
See cable sent this morning to Minister Justice respecting Grand Trunk-stop. Russell now suggests following message begins declaration of Trunk secretary states notice of meeting posted to Great Western stockholders on English register on fourth February-stop. Proxies in favour of resolution were received from five hundred sixty-one holders of Grand Western stock, holding in all three hundred ninety thousand four hundred eighty pounds stock, of whom three hundred thirty-nine held no other class of stock-stop. Great Western stockholders on Canadian register are eight only in number holding twenty-eight thousand seven hundred thirty pounds-stop. Agreement was ratified at meeting by large majority and has been sealed by company in presence of chairman and secretary, who signed as attesting witnesses, but did not themselves execute it-stop. May I now hand to company their parts of agreements. Ends.
Dominion.
Here is another cable sent by him on the same day:
Doherty, Minister of Justice,
Ottawa.
Russell's opinion on ground already notified you is that Grand Trunk meeting not strictly in accordance with Acquisition Act-stop. He has consulted counsel, who states that High Commissioner cannot he advised proceed on assumption that matter is in order until question of efficiency of meeting disposed of, and he holds that construction of Acquisition Act should be dealt with by Canadian Government on advice of its law officers-stop. He considers if all stockholders mentioned in preamble had been entitled attend and vote meeting might fairly he considered satisfy section seven, but as Great Western holders not so entitled seems to leave open auestion whether it may be so regarded-stop. - Please cable your decision-stop.	Given to understand that if all
Great Western holders had attended and all voted against resolution there would still have been at meeting large majority votes in favour.
Dominion.
On March 4, the following cable was sent by the Minister of Justice to Sir George Perley:
Dominion,
London.
Your telegrams twenty-sixth February and sixth March. Following message for Russell. Begins. No proceeding necessary by this Government until condition satisfied for appointment committee of management under section seven Acquisition Act. Meantime company must forward executed agreement and certified copy of ratifying resolution and of proceedings evidencing regularity of special general meeting, so that Government may be advised as to whether agreement competently ratified. Section seven apparently embodies Great Western

debenture stockholders in special general meeting for ratification purposes, and if they be not entitled to attend and vote at company's meetings doubtful that they can be notified merely by Canada Gazette publication. Would like to have your opinion as to whether meeting regularly constituted. Company is transmitting certified proceedings might be asked to state grounds .iustifying omission to notify Great Western stockholders. Ends.
Dohekty.
The following cable, dated March 2, was the message to which the cable I have just read was an answer:
Minister op Raieways.
Rush. My telegram 26th February Grand Trunk Railway. Sir Charles Russell requests me to send following. Begins. Grand Trunk Railway meeting held on 19th February was meeting of company convened by advertisement in Canada Gazette in accordance with clause fifteen of agreement, scheduled to Canada Atlantic Amalgamation Act. Notice appears also to have been sent each of holders of capital and debenture stocks of company on English register, but not to those on Canadian register. It does not appear that holders of Great Western debenture stock have any fight of attending and voting at meetings company. May I in these circumstances proceed upon footing that meeting was such a meeting as is contemplated by section seven of Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Act, 1919. Please cable immediately. Ends.
Dominion.
There is only one other letter. It is from Mr. Kelley asking that this Bill be passed I have already read it. Before going any {further I might explain that when the -agreement was received from England, officers of the Department of Justice and the solicitors who are to act with the Government in connection with this arbitration had the agreement and the correspondence placed before them, the question of the calling ol the meeting being, of course, what they were considering. In England the meeting was called regularly in accordance with the by-laws of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Notices were sent to 70,000 shareholders; but in addition to the sending oi the notices, in order that no question might arise as to the shareholders knowing exactly what was coming before this special meeting, a copy of the proposed agreement was enclosed with the notice to every shareholder to the number of some 70,000. There could, therefore, be no question whatever as to the validity of the meeting in that respect. In Canada there are a few shareholders who would come under this Act, in a cable which I read mentioned the number -and the meeting was. called by inserting a notice in the Canada Gazette. That is the only respect in regard to which the validity of the meeting might be called in question, and, as I understand the matter, the decision of the Deputy Minister of Justice and the other solicitors is that the meeting was regularly called, although a special notice had not been sent to each of these few shareholders in Canada. If it had not been for the two mistakes, we would have proceeded to carry out the agreement in -accordance with the Act passed last session. As, however, we must on account of these mistakes come to Parliament and as it would have to be ratified by another meeting of the shareholders, we decided that it would be better to ratify the agreement as regards these and also the question that had been raised, although in the opinion of the Minister of Justice, that would not be necessary. In order to make the matter final, clause 2 was inserted in the Bill1.
On March 17, I received from Sir George Perley an important letter, which I might read, giving the opinion of the solicitors in England as to the validity of the meeting. This is the letter:
Office of the High Commissioner for Canada.
London, 17th March, 1920.
Dear Mr. Reid:
With further reference to your letters of the 22nd and 23rd January last, in connection with the agreement of the Grand Trunk Railway Company-
Hon. members will remember that these are the letters which I wrote Sir George Perley enclosing the agreement to be taken up with the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
__X have to inform you that in accordance with
your suggestion Sir Charles Russell was instructed with a view to ensuring that all the steps taken to ratify the agreement were legally correct and I now enclose three copies of the document properly executed:	the statutory
declaration of Sir Alfred W. Smithers and Mr. Henry Hilton Norman, the chairman and secretary of the company respectively verifying the facts, together with a cutting from the Canada Gazette of the 31st January, 1920, containing (a) the notice convening the meeting and (b) the circular and draft of the agreement which was sent to the stockholders; also a copy, signed by Sir Alfred Smithers, of the resolution passed at the Special general meeting of the Grand Trunk Company on the 19th February, 19'20. To the latter is attached copies of letters dated March 16 and 17 respectively from the company's solicitors on the question of notifying the Great Western debenture stockholders. This is the point on which Sir Charles Russell considers it might he possible to argue against the sufficiency of the notice calling the company's special general meeting, and as it rests upon the construction to he placed on the Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Act, 1919, he informs me that it is one for the decision of the Government. His reasons and other details are given fully in the correspondence, of which copies are enclosed.
I am retaining three copies of the executed agreement pending this decision, and upon re-

ceipt of your cablegram authorizing me to do so, two of these will be handed to the Grand Trunk Company and the third will be kept on file here.
Tours faithfully,
(Sgd.) George H. Perley.
This is a letter from Sir Charles Russell addressed to W. L. Griffith, Esq., Office of the High Commissioner for Canada:
37 Norfolk Street,
London, W.C., 2, 8th March. 1920-. Dear Sir,-
Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada,
We beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5 th instant enclosing a copy of a cablegram of the same date received by you from the Minister of Justice, Ottawa.
We notice that this cablegram is in practically the same terms as that dated the 4th instant which was received by you from the Minister of Railways and Canals and in addition it asks for our opinion as to whether the meeting which was held was regularly constituted.
With regard to this point, section 7 of the Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Act, 1919, provides that the meeting is to be a meeting of the holders of the stocks enumerated in the preamble to the Act and the meeting which was called was a meeting of the company at which the Great Western stockholders have apparently no right to attend or vote. In our opinion therefore the meeting which was held was not strictly in accordance with the above-mentioned Act.
At the same .time we think it right to point out that even if notice of the meeting had been given to all the holders of the Great Western debenture stock, and they had power to attend and vote at the meeting, and had in fact all attended and all voted against the resolution, unless they were to be treated as entitled to voting rights far greater than those of any other class of stockholders there would still have been at the meeting, a large majority of votes in favour of the resolution.
As the matter was of considerable importance we thought it well to have the benefit of the advice of counsel and we enclose two copies of his opinion as no doubt you would desire to forward a copy to Canada.
We are obtaining the necessary evidence asked for by the Minister of Railways and Canals in his cablegram of the 4th inst. and in accordance with such cablegram we propose to have the agreements executed by the company^ and hand thetn to the High Commissioner with this evidence so that he may communicate with Canada in order that the Government may be advised as to whether the agreement has been properly ratified. We shall at the same time send the High Commissioner a full report on the matter.
The declaration referred to in Counsel's Opinion will contain the evidence which has been askd for.
Tours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Charles Russell. W. L. Griffith, Esq.,
Office of the High Commissioner for Canada, 19, Victoria Street, S.W. 1.

.This is a letter from Mr. George R. North-cote, giving his opinion as counsel in regard to the matter:
The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
Opinion.
1,	2 and 3. I have considered this matter and have settled the accompanying draft statutory declaration to be made by the chairman and secretary of the company. The resolution passed at the meeting on the 19th February last is in the form previously approved by me. I am afraid, however, that even if a statutory declaration to the effect of the draft herewith is made the High Commissioner cannot be advised to proceed upon the assumption that the matter is in order until the question referred to below with regard to the sufficiency of the meeting held has been disposed of. It is a question depending largely on the construction of the Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Act, 1919, and which will I understand and should 1 think be dealt with by the Canadian Government on the advice of its law officers. The question is whether the meeting which was held on the 19th February last was such a meeting as is contemplated by section 7 of the Act, section 7 requires the agreement to be ratified by a majority in voting power of the holders of the stocks enumerated in the preamble to the Act present in person or by proxy at a special general meeting of such stockholders duly called for the purpose of Considering such agreement. The preamble to the Act after setting out the capital and debenture stocks of the company contains a statement to the effect that the debenture stockholders were entitled to certain voting powers at meetings of the shareholders (Sic) of the company. That statement appears however to have been inaccurate since the holders of the 5 per cent Great Western debenture stock have as I understand no rights of attending and voting at meetings of the company. The regulations of the company provide for the convening of ordinary or special general meetings of the company by 14 days' notice advertised in the Canada Gazette but do not, as I understand, provide for meetings of the stockholders as such and the meeting of the 19th February was convened as a meeting of the company by advertisement in the Canada Gazette. I think that if all the stockholders referred to in the preamble to the Act had been entitled to attend and vote at the meeting, it might fairly have been regarded as such a meeting as was required to satisfy section 7 of the Act but inasmuch as the holders of the 5 per cent Great Western debenture stock were not entitled to attend and vote at it, it seems to me open to question whether it can be so regarded although it may be contended that the intention of the legislature was that the ratification of the agreement should be determined by the votes of persons entitled to vote at meetings of the company; and it is further to be observed that, unless the Great Western debenture stockholders were to be treated as entitled to voting rights far greater than those of any other class of stockholder there would still have been at the meeting a large majority of votes in favour of the resolution even if all the Great Western debenture stockholders had voted against it. But, as I have said, the point is in my opinion one to be dealt with by the Government and not to be decided by the High Commissioner on his own responsibility. I do not think section 7 requires separate meet-

ings of the different classes of stockholders to he held, or a majority of each class to be obtained in favour of ratifying the Agreement and in my opinion if the meeting satisfied the section the agreement was duly ratified.
(Sgd.) George R. Northcotb,
2 New Square.
5th March, 1920.
There is another opinion, from Sir Charles Russell, dated March 12, 1920, as follows:
Re the Grand Trunk Railway Company of _	Canada.	.
With reference to the letters of the 22nd and 23rd January which were received by you from the Minister of Railways and Canals enclosing a certified copy of the Order in Council dated the 3'lst December, 1919, together with six copies of the proposed agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada executed by the Minister of Railways and Canals, and a copy of the Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Act, 1919. we have now given this matter very careful consideration.
The Order in Council dated the 31st December, 1919, authorised the execution on behalf of His Majesty of the agreement proposed to be entered into with the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada under the terms of the Act passed by Parliament entitled "An Act respecting the acquisition by His Majesty of the Grand Trunk Railway System." This order provided as follows:
"That he (the Minister of Railways and . Canals) be authorised also to deposit with the High Commissioner for Canada in London, England, a number (approximately six) of executed originals of the said agreement, and to instruct the High Commissioner to permit the proper officers of the Grand Trunk to inspect such executed originals at any time, and also to permit such officers to execute on behalf of the Grand Trunk the originals, so deposited after ratification of the said agreement by a majority in voting power of the holders of the stock enumerated in the preamble to the said Act present in person, or by proxy, and voting at a special meeting of stockholders duly called for the purpose of considering such agreement. That he (the Minister of Railways and Canals) be authorised also to instruct the said High Commissioner upon satisfying himself that the said meeting was duly held and the said agreement duly ratified and the signing officers duly authorised to execute the said agreement under the seal of the Grand Trunk and that the said agreement has been duly executed to deliver to the said officers signing the agreement on behalf of the Grand Trunk, or either of them, two executed originals of the said agreement, as executed, returning to the minister three originals and retaining one executed (as executed) original for the files of his office for the examination and inspection of all parties concerned." The letter of the 23rd January above referred to stated that in acting under the provisions of the order, you Should be advised in every step taken by competent legal authority, and that your legal representative should advise you that the meeting referred to in the Order in Council was duly called and duly held, that the agreement was duly ratified and the signing officers were duly authorised to execute and that the agreement was duly executed. This letter also suggested that your legal representative by arangement with the Grand Trunk should attend the meeting and collaborate with
the company in assuring himself that all necessary steps were properly taken.
Upon receipt of your instructions we at once placed ourselves in communication with the company and their solicitors, with a view to being satisfied that all necessary formalities had been complied with as regards the proposed meeting. Owing, however, to the limited time at their disposal and to the somewhat complicated nature of the Acts of the company which govern the matter, of which, as you are doubtless aware, there are a great number, they were unable to satisfy us definitely on .all paints before the meeting. The meeting which had been convened was therefore held, and these points were allowed to stand over to be dealt with after the meeting.
The meeting was held on the 19th February and was attended by 'Sir Charles Russell, and as will be seen from the documents sent herewith the agreement was ratified by such meeting.
We enclose the following documents;
(1)	Six parts of the agreement duly executed by ail parties.
(2)	Statutory declaration, of Sir Alfred W. Smithers and Mr. Henry Hilton Norman, the chairman and secretary of the company respectively, verifying the facts, together with the following, exhibits therein referred to:
(a)	A cutting from the Canada Gazette of the 31st January, 1920, containing the notice convening the meeting being Exhibit "A."
(b)	The circular and draft of the agreement which was sent to the stockholders being Exhibit "B."
In acordance with the cablegrams of the 4th March received by you from the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the 5th March from the Minister of Justice, we have had the agreement executed by the company, and have also obtained the above-mentioned statutory declaration as evidence of the facts.
We are afraid however that notwithstanding this declaration we are unable to advise you to proceed upon the assumption that the matter is in order until the question referred to below with regard to the sufficiency of the meeting held has been disposed of. It is a question depending largely on the construction of the Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Act 1919, and which will we understand and should we think be dealt with by the Canadian Government on the advice of its law officers.
The question is whether the meeting which was held on the 19th February last was such a meeting as is contemplated by Section 7 of the Act.
Section 7 requires the agreement to be ratified by a majority in voting power of the holders of the stocks enumerated in the preamble to the Act present in person or by proxy at a special general meeting of such stockholders duly called for the purpose of considering such agreement. The preamble to the Act after setting out the capital and debenture stocks of the company contains a statement to the effect that the debenture stockholders were entitled to certain voting powers at meetings of the shareholders (sic) of the company. That statement appears however to have been inaccurate since the holders of the five per cent Great Western Debenture Stock have as we understand no rights of attending and voting at meetings of the company. The regulations of the company provide for the convening of ordinary or special general meetings of the company by fourteen days notice advertised in the Canada Gazette, but do not as we understand, provide for

meetings of the stockholders as such; and the meeting of the 19th February was convened as a meeting of the company by advertisement in the Canada Gazette. We think that if all the stockholders referred to in the preamble to the Act had been entitled to attend and vote at the meeting, it might fairly have been regarded as such a meeting as was required to satisfy section 7 of the said Act. but inasmuch as the holders of the five per cent Great Western Debenture Stock were not entitled to attend and vote at it, it seems to us open to question whether it can be so regarded although it may be* contended that the intention of the legislature was that the ratification of the agreement should be determined by the votes of persons entitled to vote at meetings of the company ; and it is further to be observed that, unless the 6reat Western Debenture Stockholders were to be 'treated as entitled to voting rights far greater than those of any other class of stockholders, there would still have been at the meeting a large majority of votes in favour of the resolution even if all the Great Western Debenture Stockholders had voted against it, but as we have said, the point is in our opinion one to be dealt with by the Government and not to be decided by you on your own responsibility.	t
We do not think section 7 requires separate meetings of the different classes of stockholders to be held or a majority of each class to be obtained in favour of ratifying the agreement and in our opinion if the meeting satisfied the section the agreement was duly ratified.
We have discussed the matter fully with counsel and you will see from the copy of his opinion which we have furnished to you that he confirms the above view.
We think that with a view to saving time it would be advisable that you should at once cable to the minister of Railways giving him full particulars and asking whether the Government are now satisfied as to the meeting and whether you may now hand the company their parts of the agreement.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) Charles RXtssell.
The Hon. Sir George H. Perley, K.C.M.G.,
High Commissioner for Canada, [DOT]
19 Victoria street,
Westminster, S.W.
I have another letter from Sir Charles Russell which I shall read to the House: Copy.
37 Norfolk Street, W.C. 2.
Delivery.
London, 17th March, 1920. Cha,rles Russell & Co.
Dear Mr. Griffith:
Re Grand Trunk Railway.
I am in receipt of Sir George Perley's letter of the 15th instant giving me a copy of a further cablegram received from the Canadian Minister of Justice and also enclosing copies of the following cablegrams:-
5th March. Minister of Justice to the High commissioner.
12th March. The High Commissioner to the Minister of Justice.
12th March. The High Commissioner to the Minister of Railways and Canals.
With regard to the points raised in your letter:-[DOT]

1.	You will notice that clause 15 of the Statutory Declaration which was made by the chairman and secretary contains a complete copy of the resolution ratifying the agreement and states that it was proposed and carried by a large majority. I however enclose a separate copy of the resolution certified by the chairman.
2.	With regard to the grounds justifying the omission to notify the Great Western stockholders, clause 12 of thd declaration states that although the stockholders are not entitled as of right to receive personal notices of general meetings of the company it has been the practice for many years past, to send each stockholder including the five per cent Great Western stockholders on the company's London Register, copy of the notice of every meeting; that copies of the notices are usually posted about eight days before the meeting and copies are not sent to stockholders on the Canadian Register as it would be useless to do so as they would not be received in time for the stockholders to act upon them at the meetings. This disposes of the point as to why notice was not given to the Great Western stockholders in Canada. I have however, received from the solicitors of the company further letters of the 16th and 17th instant dealing with the matter and setting out these reasons at length and I enclose copies of them herewith.
Clause 13 of the declaration sets out that notice was given to the holders of the five per cent Great Western stock in the English register.
3.	With regard to the agreement which has been executed I think possibly it would be the best course if the High Commissioner were to send three parts of it to Canada together with the declaration and other evidence and ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if he is satisfied with regard to the meeting, to cable with instructions to hand two parts to the company and to retain the other in the custody of the High Commissioner as provided by the Order in Council.
Tours very truly,
(Sgd.) Charles Russell.
W. L. Griffith, Esq.,
19 Victoria Street, S.W.X.
This is all the correspondence in connection with the matter, but if it is thought necessary I shall read the declarations. If the Department of Justice had considered that there was any doubt in regard to the validity o'f the meeting the matter could have been justified without recourse to the House simply by convening another meeting of the shareholders. But, as I have pointed out, in the opinion of the Department of Justice there was no necessity for bringing the question before Parliament but for the two errors; and as we have to come to the House to complete-the schedule, we shall at the same time obtain ratification of the agreement as passed by the shareholders. As I said at the outset, there is no question about the meeting so far as the shareholders in England are concerned.


Charles Murphy: In the correspondence' which the minister has read, reference is made to some Orders in Council that were

apparently transmitted with instructions from the Government seemingly defining the procedure to be followed. I do not know if the minister has read those Orders in Council. If not, are they available for the information of the House?


John Dowsley Reid: In the very first letter in which I enclosed the agreement I said:
" You will observe that this Order in Council provides as follows"; and then I recited the provisions of the Order in Council. I take it for granted that the Order in Council has been laid upon the Table, but whether it has been or not I may just as well read the clause again:
That he (the Minister of Railways and Canals) be authorized also to deposit with the High Commissioner for Canada in London, England, a number (approximately six) of executed originals of the said agreement, and to instruct the High Commissioner to permit the proper officers of the Grand Trunk to inspect such executed originals at any time, and also to permit such officers to execute on behalf of the Grand Trunk the originals, so deposited after ratification of the said agreement by a majority in voting power of the holders of the stock enumerated in the preamble to the said Act present in person, or by proxy, and voting at a special meeting of stockholders duly called for the purpose of considering such agreement. That he (the Minister of Railways and Canals) be authorized also to instruct the said High Commissioner upon satisfying himself that the said meeting was duly held and the said agreement duly ratified and the signing officers duly authorized to execute the said agreement under the seal of the Grand Trunk and that the said agreement has been duly executed to deliver to the said officers signing the agreement on behalf of the Grand Trunk, or either of them, two executed originals of the said agreement, as executed, returning to the Minister three originals and retaining one executed (as executed) original for the files of his office for the examination and inspection of all parties concerned.


Charles Murphy: Is that the only Order in Council?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the only Order in Council in connection with the whole matter.


Charles Murphy: The minister referred to an opinion expressed by the Department of Justice on the matter in regard to which some question was raised in the correspondence. Is that opinion of the department in writing?


John Dowsley Reid: No. When we were
discussing the two errors and the necessity for this Bill, the whole question came up as to the validity of the meeting, and the whole correspondence was discussed with the Deputy Minister of Justice, the opinion being expressed that the meeting was legal and had been called in accordance with the 80
terms of the Grand Trunk Act. There would, therefore, have been no necessity for us to come back to the House had it not been for the errors. There was some doubt on the part of the solicitors in England, but they referred the matter to the Government of Canada for an opinion from the Department of Justice. As we are compelled to come before Parliament we are taking the precaution to ratify the agreement reached at the meeting, and no one is injured because the 70,000 shareholders in England undoubtedly received sufficient notice. They got a notice calling the meeting, together with a copy of the agreement, and there was a very large majority in favour of the carrying out of that agreement If we called another meeting it would probably take two or three months before we could get them together and give the notice that would be necessary to ratify the agreement so that there could be no possible doubt. I have the statutory declaration here from Sir Alfred Smithers certifying to the resolution that was passed at the general meeting:
The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
.	Resolution.
Passed at a special general meeting of the company held at the Cannon Street Hotel, Cannon street, London, E.C., on Thursday the 19th, February 1920 at twelve o'clock noon.
Resolved, that the agreement between His Majesty the King, represented by the Minister of Railways and Canals of Canada, acting under the authority of an Order in Council dated 31st December, 1919 and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada the draft of which is now submitted to this meeting, be and the same is hereby approved and ratified, and that Sir Alfred Waldron Smithers, M.P., chairman of the Board of Directors, and Henry Hilton Norman secretary of the company, be and they are hereby authorized on behhif of the company to sign the said agreement and afix the corporate seal of the company thereto.
I certify the above to be a true copy.
(Sgd.) Alfred W. Smithers,
Chairman.
I have a letter adreased to Charles Russell & Company by Batten & Company which I would like to read:
Copy.
13, Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W.I.,
16th March, 1920. Messrs. Charles Russell & Co.
Grand Trunk.
Dear Sirs,-To prevent any possibility of misunderstanding we think it is better to write you at length in confirmation of what we have already told you verbally.
We are of opinion, and this is confirmed by our counsel, that the only notice necessary for the purpose of calling the meeting required to ratify the agreement with the company was the notice published in the " Canada Gazette." It is recognized we think by all parties thar


Lucien Cannon: If the Department of
Justice is of opinion that the meeting was regular, and if counsel for the Grand Trunk is also of the opinion that the meeting was regular why should the Bill be introduced?


John Dowsley Reid: I explained that at the outset. We are introducing the Bill to correct two errors that were made. One is that a railway has been left out altogether. We would have to introduce a Bill to correct that error and we would also have to introduce a Bill to correct the mistake in reference to the other railway which is described as a leasehold instead of a road controlled

by majority stock ownership. We would also have to have a meeting of the Grand Trunk for the purpose of ratifying that even if we had gone on with our regular agreement. By this Bill we are ratifying the agreement as a whole as well. We have the opinion of the Grand Trunk solicitors in England that without doubt the meeting had been regularly called. We have also the opinion of Sir Charles Russell and two others. They raised a question of doubt, but they say it is a matter that should be decided by the Department of Justice, or by the law officers of the Government, in Ottawa.


Lucien Cannon: If I understand the minister rightly, the agreement could not be completed unless this thing is adopted by Parliament?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, no.	[DOT]


Lucien Cannon: If this Bill is 'not adopted by Parliament the Government will have to see that a new meeting of the shareholders is called?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I do not go that far. So far as the agreement passed last session is concerned the law officers are of the opinion that that agreement is legal; that as the meeting was called we could proceed now without any further meeting of the Grand Trunk shareholders and act under that agreement; but after going on with the agreement and acting on it, we would have to come to Parliament to get these two mistakes corrected. .Now as we have to come to Parliament to make the two corrections, the Government feel that it is just as well to clear up any possible doubt that has been raised in connection -with the possibility of the meeting in question not having been legally called. I think that is a fair answer to the hon. gentleman.


Lucien Cannon: When this Bill, as it now reads, has been adopted will it be possible for a shareholder of the Grand Trunk who thinks that his interests have not been properly protected to protest before any court of justice and secure that better protection?


John Dowsley Reid: Out of all the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway only two of them could raise any question about the agreement, and so far as the Department of Justice is concerned-


Lucien Cannon: How many shares would they possess?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Lucien Cannon: Those shareholders would be debarred from any recourse before any tribunal?


John Dowsley Reid: Not the owners of the $100,000 but only two, because of the eight referred to, six did receive notice in the regular way.
In addition there are two or three declarations which, if I read them, would complete all the documents pertaining to this matter so far as I am aware. There is first of all a notice of the meeting signed by Sir Alfred Wilfred Smithers and Henry Hilton Norman which was published in the Canada Gazette:
Canada Gazette, Ottawa, January 31, 1920.

This is the exhibit marked " A " referred to in the statutory declaration of Sir Alfred Waldron Smithers and Henry Hilton Norman made before me this 12th day of March, 1920.
(Sgd.) Arthuh F. Greenwood.
A Commissioner for Oaths.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
Notice is hereby given that a special general meeting of the Grand Trunk- Railway Company of Canada will be held at the Cannon Street Hotel. Cannon street, London. E.C.. on Thursday, the 19th February, 1920, at twelve o'clock noon precisely, for the purpose of considering, and if approved, of ratifying an agreement between His Maiesty the King, represented by the Minister of Railways and Canals of Canada, of the first part, and the company, of the second part, the draft of which agreement will be submitted to the meeting.
By order,
Sir Alfred W. Smithers,
1	Chairman.
H. H. Norman,
Secretary.
Dash wood House,
9 New Broad Street.
London, E.C.
January 30. 1920.
That is the notice that was published in the Canada Gazette and which the law officers of the Grown think was sufficient notice for those shareholders in Canada. As I have said there is only a possibility of two shareholders raising a question of doubt.
Mr. TRAHAN:: Was the document published in the Canada Gazette?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. I will now read a copy of a circular which was distributed by the Directors of the Grand Trunk among the shareholders:

The present railway conditions are worldwide ; they are caused by the effects of the war; if the railways are to be maintained and if new capital is to be found for new extensions, the railways must be placed on a paying basis. When the Government of Canada becomes the owner of a great railway system, such as it will have when it acquires the Grand Trunk it can speedily bring about such a readjustment of rates as will permit a fair return on the capital involved. The whole cause of the present difficulty of the Grand Trunk is its being required to carry on an .ever increasing business under the present phenomenal operating costs without a corresponding increase in rates, and that condition cannot be altered until the Railway Commission allow an adequate increase of rates.
It is under these circumstances, and after n. long and anxious consideration, that the Board unhesitatingly advise the Proprietors to accept the agreement, and vote for the same either in person at the General Meeting or by signing the enclosed Form of Proxy and returning it forthwith to the Secretary.
The Committee, whose names are given above, appointed to confer with the Directors, unanimously join with the Board in recommending the Proprietors to accept the agreement.
On behalf of the Board,



ALFRED W. SMITHERS,

[Stage Direction]
Chairman.
A copy of the agreement is attached. That is a copy of the notice that was sent to the 70,000 shareholders in England
Lucien Cannon: Was that circular sent to the shareholders of the Vermont and Province Line Railroad Company, and of the Pembroke Southern Railway Company, and to the holders of the Great Western debenture stocks?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Charles Murphy: Is there any thing to show how this group of eight voted, or how the two voted?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no record of that. The affidavits show that there was no protest from them in any shape or form. This question of the acquisition of the Grand Trunk was so much discussed in the press that I am satisfied these shareholders would know that the meeting was being held. At all events, they are in a much better position to-day, because whereas their stock was guaranteed only by the Grand Trunk it is now guaranteed by the Dominion of -Canada, so instead of being injured they are better off.


Charles Murphy: What was the date of the declaration which the minister just read?


John Dowsley Reid: March 12, 1920. Even up till that date there had been no protest of any kind from any of these eight shareholders who did not receive notice. I have now brought all the information down. I asked the Deputy Minister of Justice to send me a copy of every document he had in the Justice Department, and the file I have read comes f om that department. I want to repeat that if we were to have the shareholders of the Grand Trunk called to-

gether again to ratify these two errors and the agreement as a whole, it would mean a further two or three month's delay. I am exceedingly anxious, and so of course are the Grand Trunk officials who are operating the railway, and the officials of the Canadian National Railway, that we should get the systems linked up as soon as possible so that we can effect economies. Immediately the agreement is ratified, we shall- be able to appoint the Committee of Management, who will try and effect all economies possible, and there is no doubt that the economies can be effected. To give an instance, in the city of -Ottawa we have two very expensive offices selling tickets, one for the Grand Trunk, and the other for the Canadian National. There is no reason, so far as I can see, why we should not dispense with one office at once, and the same is true of other parts of Canada.


Lucien Cannon: Why do-es not the minister do in Ottawa Wh-ait was done in Quebec, close up the Grand Trunk office?


John Dowsley Reid: That is exactly what I was suggesting.


Lucien Cannon: That has already been done in Quebec.


Mr. McMASTER:: They are progressive in Quebec.


John Dowsley Reid: We cannot close the Grand Trunk office until we have appointed the Committee of Management.


Lucien Cannon: The Quebec office has been closed.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know why it has been done. I shall be pleased when we are in committee to give all information that may be -asked for, and I trust hon. members will -see their way clear to ratify the agreement at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. CAHILL:: In what way does the minister think the people of Canada would suffer if this agreement were not carried into effect at once?


John Dowsley Reid: Until it is carried into effect we cannot get the railways working together. I am advised both by Mr. Kelley, of the Grand Trunk, and by Mr. Hanna and his officials, that once 'the agreement is ratified they are prepared to sit down and make plans for effecting economies, in operation very 1-aTgely, as well as for making the operation much easier than at present. As we have to get these two small errors I have spoken of rectified, I feel that although 'the law officers do not think there

is any question as to the validity of the agreement, it is better that we should settle all doubts that may exist by passing this legislation. There is no complaint, and there can be no complaint, from other than two out of the whole list of shareholders.


William Stevens Fielding: Touching the question of offices to which the minister has referred, there is in London, in Trafalgar Square, a very fine office of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I take it for granted that that would be included in the property we would acquire.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: The question often arises as to the looaJtion of offices in London for Canada. There is no finer location in London than that of this office in Trafalgar Square, and when we are in committee perhaps the minister would be prepared to tell us what is the nature of the accommodation there, and whether it would serve the purposes of a general office.


John Dowsley Reid: In my memory serves me right, this office is part of the Grand Trunk property and will become the property oif the Government. The Canadian Northern also have offices and officials in London, although perhaps the property does ndt amount to much. There is another case where an amalgamation of offices might be effected.
- Mr. CANNON: As long as this agreement is not put into force this country is not responsible for the liabilities or the administration of the Grand Trunk.


John Dowsley Reid: That is right, but the position the Government takes is that once the agreement is ratified we must proceed with it.


Lucien Cannon: Would that not explain somewhat the eagerness of the Grand Trunk people to have the Bill put through?


John Dowsley Reid: Personally, I am just as anxious as the Grand Trunk to get the matter cleared up, because if we are going to take over the Grand Trunk we should try to get economies under way at the earliest moment. Every member will agree that, if the agreement is to be carried out, the sooner steps are taken in the matter the better. It is unprofitable and unsatisfactory to have two railways paralleling each other, and I think it is well that we should proceed as quickly as possible with this Bill. When we are in committee I shall
be glad to furnish any further information that may be desired.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has given us a two-fold reason for the introduction of this Bill. He has said in the first place that its purpose is to correct two errors that appear in the agreement which the Government has drawn, and which has been signed between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The other purpose of the Bill is to have this Parliament ratify the agreement in toto. I should like to point out to the Government that at the last session of Parliament the Opposition urged very strongly a course of action which, had it been adopted, would have avoided altogether the two-fold necessity which the minister finds himself under at the moment. The Government would not have been obliged to come to-day and confess, as it has, errors in its management of public affairs, and Parliament would not have been obliged to spend further time and to incur further expenditures in connection with this legislation. Hon. members will recall that my hon. friend from Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) at the last session urged a course which he considered necessary in order to obviate just such errors as those that have been pointed out to-day. May I draw the attention of the House to an amendment which was moved by my hon. friend at that time? I shall not read the whole of the amendment, but I may quote that part of it which is of considerable interest just now. In the Journals of the House of Tuesday, November 4, 1919, will be found the amendment moved by the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne, in which the following appears:
That the information in possession of the House is insufficient to enable the House and the people to fully understand the complicated affairs of the Grand Trunk Railway system.
Then there follows this clause:
That the House is of opinion that before taking further action towards the acquisition of the railways referred to, the Government should appoint a commission composed of persons of recognized ability and experience in railway management, railway finance and railway accounting to make a full inquiry into all the affairs of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and its subsidiary companies, their assets and liabilities, the condition of the railway lines and their equipment, the physical value of the properties, the sums required to put them into an efficient condition, their estimated earning powers, and generally into all matters in any way relating to the affairs of the companies herein referred to, and to make a full report thereon for the information of Parliament.

At that time the Government resolutely refused to accept either the amendments or the suggestion that came from this side. To-day, however, we have one consequence at least of the consequence of that refusal." We find that two errors have crept into the agreement, and we have no guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that other errors may not also have occurred. In fact, there is reasonable ground for the supposition, judging by the correspondence read by the minister, that a great many of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway company are entirely dissatisfied with the meeting that was held and the procedure adopted^ a dissatisfaction no doubt due in part to the lack of that full information which would have been disclosed had the course suggested by this side of the House been followed. As I said the other day when the minister brought in this measure, we have no desire on this side to delay in any way any legislation of urgent public importance, but this Bill as introduced goes very much further than the simple question of correcting the two errors which the minister says constitute the main, and in fact, the only object of this legislation. Let me say at once that if by the correction of these two errors we can extricate the Government from the difficulty into which it has brought itself, and provided the minister will agree to confine the scope of the Bill to that purpose, I think we can undertake to pass the measure to-day. I see no reason whatever why we should not agree to the changes which the minister seeks to bring about so far as these particular errors are concerned, and to give any measure of ratification that may be necessary in connection with these errors. But when the minister asks us to [DOT]do more than that, when he demands the ratification of the whole agreement, then he opens up a pretty broad field, and Parliament is put in a position in which it assumes very large responsibilities if' it should take that particular step at 'this time.
I may point out in this connection that at the last session of Parliament I introduced an amendment to the Grand Trunk Railway Bill, an amendment which, had it been adopted, would have covered all that the minister is now asking, even in the larger way of ratification. The proposed amendment will be found at page 155 of the Journals of the House of last session as follows:	[DOT]
Mr. King moved in amendment thereto:-
That this Bill be not now read a Third time but that it be re-committed to a Committee of the "Whole House with instructions to amend 
same, by adding to Section 2 the following: " The agreement herein shall be submitted to and be subject to ratification by the Parliament of Canada."
Yet, every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, when we of the Opposition introduced the foregoing amendment at the last session of Parliament, voted the proposal down. It is not our fault that the Government finds it necessary to come to Parliament for ratification of the agreement. At that time we were asking that this very step should be taken.
Let me draw the attention of the House to the invidious position in which Parliament finds itself in this matter of ratification. When the measure was under discussion last session, had the course suggested in this amendment been adopted, Parliament would have had the same opportunity of considering this agreement that was afforded the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company when the agreement between them and the Government was submitted to them for their approval. We pointed out then in most emphatic language that the Government was granting to the shareholders in Great Britain a privilege which they 'were denying the representatives of the people of Canada in Parliament, and I desire to emphasize that this House, in being asked to ratify the agreement at the present time, is not accorded the same privilege and consideration that was accorded the shareholders of the Grank Trunk Company in Great Britain.
I see the Minister of Justice prepared to start up and point out that at least we are now getting a chance to ratify but I think he will see the difference I have in mind, as soon as I have an opportunity of explaining it.
The agreement between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company was signed on the 8th March of this year.
It was submitted to the shareholders, and to the debenture stockholders at London for approval on the 19th day of February, 1920. When the shareholders" of the Grand Trunk had this agreement before them it had not been signed by either the Government or the *shareholders. If there were errors such as have been pointed out to us to-day existing in the agreement at that time the shareholders had an opportunity of bringing them to the attention of the Government if they noticed them. On their being pointed out, the shareholders would have been at liberty, if they had so desired, to raise, any question in regard to these features of the agreement before the agreement was

signed. But that is wholly different from the position in which Parliament is placed because Parliament is being asked to ratify this contract which has already been signed by the shareholders and by the Government.
I venture to say that the Government will not permit us to open up the subject matter of the contract for discussion and that they will be unwilling to accept an amendment of the contract in any particular except as to the point in which they have asked Parliament to amend.
The function of Parliament, in so far as this agreement is concerned, is not that of a deliberative assembly considering the wisdom of a particular clause in the contract; Parliament's function is reduced to a simple registration of approval of the action of the Government. Parliament should not be placed in that position. Two or three times during this session I have drawn the attention of the Government to the fact that in 'connection with important matters which they have brought before the House involving the expenditure of public money, action had already been taken upon contracts by Order in Council, and Parliament has not had an opportunity of doing other than registering a'protest against such procedure. Unless the Government is prepared to open up this whole contract and allow the House to make such changes as may be necessary and advisable in the public interest, we should not now be asked simply to ratify the whole agreement when it has been signed by both parties. If we cannot, as the people's representatives in this House be given the same rights and privileges as were given to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk railway in Great Britain I prefer not to have Parliament put in the position of degrading its function as a deliberative assembly to that of a mere registering office for Orders in Council.
What I would suggest to the minister is that if the purpose is, as he said, simply to correct these errors the title of his Bill ought to be not " an Act to confirm the agreement," but an " Act to correct certain errors in the agreement " between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Let him undertake to make that change and we on this side will take no exception to the passing of that particular phase of the Bill. But we will take very strong exception to being forced to appear to be doing one thing when in reality we are doing another, and obliged to give sanction to a transaction the details of which we have had no opportunity to criticise.
It may perhaps be, as the minister himself has told us-and he emphasized it again to-day-that there was no necessity for the ratification feature of the Bill other than in respect to the particular errors to which I have referred. If ratification is needless it is meaningless to ask for it. I do not think Sir that Parliament should be invited by the Government to spend its time on needless or meaningless legislation.
There is this further point; that in the correspondence which the minister has read to the House this afternoon there is a good deal that ought to be carefully considered before we proceed with the further discussion of this measure. The minister told us there were only two or three pages of correspondence. He read for nearly three hours and one would think his one or two pages had expanded into one or two hundred pages. Under the circumstances I would ask my hon. friend not to press the second reading of the Bill until we have had an opportunity of examining more closely the significance of some of the statements made in the correspondence which he has brought down and which call somewhat in question the validity of the meeting of stockholders called to deal with this matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the leader of the Opposition would prefer that we do not proceed any further to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I wish to' comply with the request at once. I do not want to insist on going on with the Bill if the hon. gentleman wishes to look over the correspondence and study it more closely. I suppose there would be no objection to proceeding tomorrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. I will
therefore move that the debate be adjourned.


Lucien Cannon: Will the correspondence
be printed in Hansard?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: The members will have it to-morrow at twelve o'clock?


John Dowsley Reid: At ten o'clock.


An hon. MEMBER:: We do not get it
until twelve.


Lucien Cannon: We cannot digest that
correspondence in two hours.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. -
Debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1920-21.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Newton W. Rowell, for the Minister of Finance, it was resolved that the message receive this day from His Excellency the Administrator, and the Estimates attached thereto, he submitted to the Committee of Supply. _

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 28 respecting Maple Products.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was
last before the committee clause 2 had been amended by adding after the figure " 3 " in the sixteenth line of the Bill the words " except with the consent of the Minister of Health."	.


Newton Wesley Rowell: When the Bill was previously in committee some discussion took place in reference to the form of clause 2, and various suggestions were made as to its amendment. Since the discussion I have had the opportunity of giving some further consideration to the clause and I would now suggest that it be amended by striking out the words " or which is composed partly of maple sugar or maple syrup and "


Mr. MARCIL:: What is the object of this amendment?	.


Newton Wesley Rowell: To make clear the meaning of the section, which I take to be that no article resembling or being an imitation of maple syrup or maple sugar and which is not pure maple sugar or maple syrup may be sold as such.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: Coming to subsection 3, when it was before the committee I submitted an amendment which, at the time, was not satisfactory to myself nor to the committee. After giving the matter further consideration I would suggest that the words inserted be struck out and that the clause be amended in this way: Insert in the nineteenth line the words " resembling or being an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup;" and insert in the twentieth line before the word " article " the word '' such."


William Stevens Fielding: Will the minister kindly read the clause as it will then stand.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The clause as amended
will read:
The word maple shall not be used either alone or In combination with any word or words or letter or letters, on the label or other mark, illustration or device on a package containing any article of food, resembling or being an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup, or on any such article of food itself, which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup, and any article of food labelled or marked in violation of this subsection shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of the Pood and Drugs Act. 1920.
Members of the committee will see that the effect of the amendment is to limit the exclusive use of the word " maple " to articles of food resembling or being an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup.


William Stevens Fielding: It will not interfere in any way with companies having the name " maple "?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it will make the
meaning of the section clear. It does not interfere with the use of the word " maple " on any other article of food than the articles mentioned.


William Stevens Fielding: It would not disqualify the member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) either?


Mr. PROULX:: There is an article of
food which is sold as maple butter. Would the sale of that article be prevented?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the section would
not prevent the sale of maple butter unless it was made up in a way to resemble or imitate maple syrup. I do not know whether maple butter is made up in a way to resemble maple syrup or not. If it were then, the use of the word " maple " would be forbidden under this clause.


Edmond Proulx: Supposing it were of the same colour?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the use of the expression "maple leaf" be permitted in connection with the manufacture or sale of biscuits?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That would not be prohibited by the change in the section. Hon. members will see that the effect of the change is to limit the right to claim the exclusive use of the word " maple " to food products resembling or being an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was intimated that an officer of the Department of Health visited a factory in which they were manufacturing " Maple Leaf " biscuits and

protested against the continuation of the manufacture as a violation of the old Act. Would the minister consider that such action was proper and in accordance with the provisions of the Act as it formerly stood?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was proper and in accordance with the provisions of the Act as it stood, and those interested in the business have called on the department to enforce the law as against those using the word " maple " in connection with food products that are not of the character of maple sugar or maple syrup. The Government does not feel that such a monopoly in the use of the word " maple " is justified in the public interest and that those who are manufacturing food products which have no resemblance to maple sugar or maple syrup should not be debarred the use of the general word " maple " which is so characteristic of Canada.


Mr. DECHENE:: Would the section interefer with the manufacture and sale of " Crescent Mapleine "? The advertisement for this product declares that " it is a delicious flavouring for syrups, cakes, candies, bon-bons, ice-cream, frostings, etc." The statement is made that it " contains no maple sugar, syrup nor sap, but produces a taste similar to a maple."


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not knowing the character of the product I cannot undertake to express an opinion on the interpretation of the law as applied to that particular product. The courts would have to determine whether the product came within the section or not.


Lucien Cannon: I wish to call the attention of the minister to a case that happened in my county: A gentleman applied to the Trade Department for a patent to manufacture a certain syrup which was called, jf I. remember correctly, "Sucre de fresne." He obtained permission from the department !to put this kind of syrup on the market. Later it was seized by the Department of Public Health, and there has been no redress, although the department has been communicated with on the subject several times. Will these amendments put an end to such conflicts between the two departments, so that a man will know whether he has a right 'to put on the market a product of that kind? .


Newton Wesley Rowell: No man might put on the market a product in violation of the law ,as it stood, and the law as it stood prohibited the putting on the market of the product my hon. friend has mentioned.
The officers of the department were but enforcing the law as it stood. I have some knowledge of that case; it was drawn to my attention. But I have already intimated that the law as it stood was too broad in its terms; that it is no't right to give a monopoly of the use of the word "maple" to producers of maple syrup - ot maple sugar; that other people have the right to use the word so long as they do not use it in connection with a food pro-duot that resembles or is an imitation of maple syrup or maple sugar.


Mr. COPP:: Does this clause cover other maple products, such as maple candy, maple molasses and maple cream?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It will not prohibit the use of the word "maple" in 'connection with any product that does not resemble or is not an imitation of maple, syrup or maple sugar.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to add as section 3 of the Bill the following:
Every person who violates the provisions of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and shall for the first offence be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200 and costs and not less than $50 and costs, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment, and for each subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding $50-0 and costs and less than $50 and costs, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
This section is taken from the old Adulteration Act and is necessary in order to make this Bill effective.


Mr. VIEN:: Many persons may commit an offense against this law without full knowledge of its provisions. I suggest, therefore, that the minimum fine for the first offence be not stated, but be left to the judgment of the magistrate who deals with the case.	.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the committee think it desirable I have no objection to reducing the amount of the minimum fine for the first offence, but some amount should be stated. I am not aware that any hardship has arisen under the existing law. The men interested in having this law enforced are the producers of maple syrup and maple sugar, who desire to protect the pure product against the .adulterated product which is sold as pure maple syiup or pure maple sugar. I think that the provision is quite all right as it is, but if the committee desire

to have the minimum fine reduced to $10, I have no objection.


Thomas Vien: I suggest, then, that it be made $10.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I agree that the minimum fine for first offence shall be $10 instead of $50.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
New section 3 as amended agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move that the following be added as section 4 of the Bill:
4. Every person who violates any of the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of said sections shall be guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to the penalties prescribed by section 16 of "The Food and Drugs Act, 1920".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the title:
Mr. PEDLOW:: I was not in the House when section 3 was adopted. If it has been carried as it appears in the Bill, I think it works a hardship which was not intended, and I should like the privilege of making a few remarks in that Tegard.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sure that the committee will allow the hon. member to make an inquiry concerning the clause. The clause cannot be re-opened after it has been adopted.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend's apprehension will be removed, I think, when I tell him that the clause has been amended in committee by inserting in the 19th line, after the word "food," the words "resembling or being an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup."


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am satisfied with that explanation; it covers axactly the point which I had ill mind.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Georges Henri Boivin: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Now.


Georges Henri Boivin: As the Bill has been amended in committee the third reading can only take place at this time by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 27, respecting food and drugs.-Hon. Mr. Rowell-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
TMr. Rowell.]
Georges Henri Boivin: When the Bill was last before the committee several clauses had been adopted; others had been allowed to stand. The first clause which had been allowed to stand was clause 5.
On section 5-Food, when deemed to be misbranded:


Newton Wesley Rowell: This clause stood in order that I might consider certain suggestions made by members of the committee in connection with different paragraphs. I have now had an opportunity of giving them consideration with the officers of the department, and I wish to move some amendments which, I think, would remove any objections which have been raised and which would at the same time carry out the full object sought by the provisions of this clause. Hon. members will recall that paragraph (a) read:
Food shall be deemed to be misbranded within the meaning* of this Act.-
(a) if it is an imitation of the article under whose name it is sold or offered for sale and if it is not clearly and explicitly described as an imitation.
I would move to substitute for paragraph (a) the following:
If it is an imitation of or substitute for or resembles, in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is exposed or offered for sale, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) made, in reference to paragraph (c), a suggestion, the substance of which might well be adopted. I would move that the following be substituted for paragraph (c):
If it is sold or offered for sale by a name which does not belong to it.


Thomas Vien: Does that mean that every article offered for sale will have a name registered?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Thomas Vien: I think paragraph (c), as it originally read, was clearer. The amendment suggested by the minister might be construed as meaning that every article offered for sale must have a name of its own.


Georges Henri Boivin: Paragraph (c) has already been amended to read as follows:
If it is sold or offered for sale hy a name other than that which belongs to such article.


Thomas Vien: I would suggest that we come back to the wording of the paragraph as

printed in the Bill, because, otherwise, the paragraph means that every article offered for sale must have a name that belongs to it.


Mr. NESBITT:: According to my memorandum some one suggested the other night that the words "of the same kind'' should be added, so that the paragraph would read:.
If it is sold or offered for sale by a name which belongs to another article of the same kind.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite content to
leave it in the form in which it was originally drafted or to accept the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition, which I moved, in substance, to-night. I do not think difficulty would arise in either case; in the practical working out of the law, either form would be satisfactory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite content to take either form.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Then, perhaps, we had
better leave it as it was originally in the Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would not the minister
add the words "of the same kind" so as to make the paragraph more explicit?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There might be something slightly different. A name might be used for the purpose of misleading on something that was nearly akin, but not exactly of the same kind. I prefer to leave the paragraph as it stands.


William Stevens Fielding: I find myself returning to a difficulty which arose when the matter was up before. What constitutes "to belong to"? Each of these articles claims a certain name and in neither case is it a registered trade-mark. How do you prove that it belongs to one and not to the other? There is a difficulty in establishing that it belongs to either unless it is a trade-mark.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My recollection is that this is the same paragraph as has been in the Act for some years; I do not think this particular one has been changed, and if no difficulty has arisen so far, we might, perhaps, retain it.
Amendment withdrawn.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The paragraph will stand as originally drafted. I desire to suggest two or three amendments in reference to paragraph (f) which was thq. one on which most discussion took place. I move that paragraph (f) be amended by inserting in the eighteenth line of section 5, after the word "stated," the words "within limits of variability to be fixed by regulations." It
has been pointed out to me by men engaged in the trade that it is not always possible to have the exact weight or the exact size; *that some slight limits Of variability must be permitted.- Therefore, this change has been suggested, and I think it will be an improvement in the practical working of the clause.


Lucien Cannon: Do I understand that this paragraph would apply, for instance, to a farmer who goes to the city to sell his goods to a grocer? Would he have to put in different packages everything that he brings from the country to the city?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. My hon. friend will see that it must be "in package form, sealed by the manufacturer or producer." If the goods are sold in a sealed package where the contents are not open to inspection, and the package bears his name and address, the'contents of the package must be clearly and correctly stated upon the outside of the package.


Lucien Cannon: Does the word "producer" cover a farmer?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think it would cover any [DOT] man who sold his goods in package form, ana sealed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I desire to move to add the following to this clause:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to packages the weight of which including the package and contents is under two ounces.
It has been pointed out to me by manufacturers that it is very difficult to be absolutely accurate as to the exact weight of packages of very small size. As a business proposition, there are difficulties in the way of applying this provision to very small packages.


William Stevens Fielding: The previous line refers to "regulations," but it does not say by whom they are to be made. In fact, there are two parties making regulations later on in the Bill. The general statement, "by regulations" is rather vague. It would be better, I think, to say, "by regulations as hereinafter provided."


Mr.   DEOHENE@: Would a farmer putting up butter in a pound package be obliged to put his name on each package?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: He is a producer.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am afraid my hon. friend has not read the clause carefully. It

only applies if certain conditions exist; first, if it is in package form, secondly, if it is sealed by the manufacturer or producer, and third, if it bears his name and address. If he puts it up in a sealed package bearing his name and address he must go a step further and clearly state the contents and weight.


Lucien Cannon: The minister is going back to the interpretation clause. The word "package" covers pretty nearly everything, it means even an ordinary wrapper.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the package is sealed.


Lucien Cannon: How could a basket, for instance, be sealed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They are sealed sometimes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the minister considered fixing a time from which this section shall begin to apply, or is there some general clause in the Act covering that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I intend moving a general clause afterwards.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Has the minister considered the desirability of making provision as to when these clauses shall come into effect? If not, I would suggest that after the word "package" on line 17 the following words be inserted "on and after July the first, 1921," or some similar provision. The object of my suggestion is to allow a reasonable time for the disposal of goods already manufactured and for using up the stock of printed labels in the hands of the manufacturers.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend evidently did not hear the answer I gave to the leader of the Opposition. I stated that I intended moving an amendment later on which would deal with that matter.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Would not ,the words I have suggested cover the point?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think I can cover it in a better way.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Producers of maple
syrup very often seal their bottles simply with a cork, and the bottles bear the name and address of the producer. Would such a bottle be regarded as sealed? It would be very difficult for a farmer away back in the woods to state these particulars upon the outside of the bottle.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think- they seal the bottles.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: They cork them.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not see any reason why they should not put the weight on. There is no reason why they should not be prevented from deceiving, any more than anybody else.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They do not deceive.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They very often do, I can tell my hon. friend.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is highly desirable
from the standpoint of the lawyer that any Act should contain all its terms within itself, particularly an Act dealing with criminal offences. If a man should go to the minister's office-supposing the hon. gentleman ever should be obliged to go back to his practice and advise people on questions of law, and ask him a question about this Act,-the minister could not answer him simply by referring to the Act because he would find it mentions "regulations" which are not contained in the Act, and [DOT] which are not to be found in libraries. I submit that as much as possible should be put in the Act itself. It can be done, I think, particularly in a case where we describe what the punishment shall be. That would enable us to do away with regulations to a very great extent.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I quite agree that it is
desirable, so far as possible, that the Act should be complete in itself, but in an Act of this kind it is not possible as a practical proposition to put in all the details that may be required in regulating matters of this kind. The Orders in Council-and I think provision is made later on for this- should be published in The Gazette. They relate to regulations the violation of which constitute an offence, and they are always available on application to the department, I am only adopting the procedure which is universal in Acts of this kind. It is necessary to supplement the legislation by suitable regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: There is one further
amendment necessary, in order to exempt from the operation of this clause packages of standard size as provided for in the Meat and Canned Foods Act. The Meat and Canned Foods Act provides for the sale of goods in packages of standard size. I therefore move to amend this clause by adding:
Provided also that nothing In this clause shall be taken to require the statement of weight, measure or number upon containers or packages of standard size as provided by Orders of the Governor in Council under the Meat and

Canned Foods Act, and provided further that the Governor in Council may make regulations deferring the operation of this subsection for such period as he may prescribe with regard to bottles containing mineral waters, ginger ale, ginger beer, or other common beverages ordinarily known as soft drinks.
" The latter part of this amendment appears to be necessary to meet a condition which the manufacturers of these forms of liquid refreshment find existing in Canada to-day. They say it is not possible to get the necessary supplies of bottles for ordinary bottling purposes, the glass being so scarce a commodity at the present time, and they have therefore been compelled to buy supplies of second-hand bottles in the* United States. The different states of the Union have different standards in the sizes of these bottles. Drinks are sold in pint bottles, so-called, but the bottles are not all of the same size, and the manufacturers state that at the present time they are not able to comply with the Act owing to their inability to procure bottles of a standard size. We are therefore deferring the operation of this clause for thre years to meet that situation that exists in Canada to-day.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Does this include milk bottles?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is no difficulty
about milk bottles.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Milk is a soft drink.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not in,lthe sense intended in the Bill.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I do not wish to be obnoxious, but I think you are killing your general section by this special legislation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am simply deferring
the operation of this clause to make it possible for the industry to put itself in a position to comply with the law.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will this provision apply to preserve bottles and bottles of that kind?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Preserves are sold in sealed bottles.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The classes of bottles are -limited by the language of the amendment: "Bottles containing mineral waters, ginger ale, ginger beer, or other common beverages ordinarily known as soft drinks." It is in connection with these particular classes of bottles that the difficulty arises. There is a variation in sizes and it is found impossible at the present time to secure bottles of a standard size.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does the minister propose to get over the fact that very small bottles are sold for the same price as the larger-sized bottles?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am free to say that the representations made to me in connection with this matter only strengthen my conviction of the importance of this section, because it is clear that bottles substantially differing in the amount of content are sold on the market as pint bottles.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister not think that if there are transgressors who sell'small bottles at the same price as large bottles he is giving them too long a tether in allowing them to continue in this state of illegality for three years?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They wanted seVen years, because they said that that was the ordinary life of bottles. I am not giving them the full period they request, however.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is it the intention to
regulate the size of brandy bottles? I understand that brandy is sold in what are called "reputed quart bottles," as well as in imperial quart bottles. Is it the intention that henceforth it shall be sold only in the larger bottles, so that those who buy this drink may not be defrauded of the full quantity for which they pay?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite sure that all hon. members will sympathize with my hon. friend in the misfortunes he has suffered in the past in being taken in with regard to the brandy bottles he has been buying, but it is not my intention to make any special provision in that respect. My hon. friend will have to exercise his own ingenuity and skill, when he goes to buy a bottle of brandy, to determine whether it contains an imperial quart or the other measure.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: The other evening some objection was taken to the use of the words, "exaggerated claims," in subsection (e) and I consented to have the word " exaggerated" struck out. If there is any objection to its restoration I shall not press the matter, but I find that the words " exaggerated claims " are in the American Act, and in other Acts of a similar character to this, with a view to meeting conditions such as will readily suggest themselves to hon. members. I think the Act would be better with the word in.


Lucien Cannon: Who will decide whether a claim is "exaggerated" or not?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The court before whom
the matter comes for decision. I move that subsection (e) be amended by replacing the words " or exaggerated " so that the clause may read as before.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-regulations by Governor in Council:
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to add to subsection (a) the following words, "or the Meat and Canned Foods Act " so that the clause as amended will empower the Governor in Council to make regulations:
Prescribing standards of quality for and fixing the limits of variabilities permissible in any articlf of food or drug the standard of which is not otherwise prescribed by this Act or the Meat and Canned Foods Act.


William Stevens Fielding: Was section 15 passed?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: I was going to suggest to the minister that perhaps sections 14 and 15 might be consolidated, seeing that they both relate to regulations, one set of which are to be made by the Governor in Council and the other by the minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The only difference in
the two sections is that under section 14 the regulations must be published in the Canada Gazette. Those would be regulations the violation of which might result in conviction under the Act, and they must therefore be published in the Gazette. The other regulations are matters of internal arrangement, describing the duties of inspectors, the tariff of fees, etc. That was the reason why I left them separate the other evening.


William Stevens Fielding: Subsection (d) of section 15 is very broad.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We have not got through with section 14.


Georges Henri Boivin: We are on section 14 now.


Mr. FOURNIER:: By section 14, subsection (b) the Governor in Council is given power to prescribe "what the colour, size and contents of such label shall be." I do not think the word "colour" should stand. It should be struck out. That is going a little too far.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Colour is a very important factor in the situation, although I intend to move a substitute for that clause. Let me give my hon. friend the illustrations

that have come to my own notice. Some use a yellow label and print the words they desire the public to read in black on yellow. They print the words that they do not desire the public to read and which are necessary to truthfully describe the article in golden letters on a yellow ground. The buyer does not read the words in gold because they are not conspicuous or noticeable and he is mislead by the discripfcion on the label. Another practice that has toome under observation is the use of a red coloured label on which the words that are intended to, be distinct are printed in black while the words that are not intended to be distinct are printed in brown, the brown on the red not being conspicuous while the black is. They have in the department scores of these labels all of which are clearly intended to deceive, and will deceive, unless1'a person is exceedingly careful in looking most minutely at the label. This matter was discussed with representatives of the manufacturers, and I move as a substitute for (b) the following:
Requiring a label to be attached to any article of food or drug designed to prevent the public, or the purchaser from being deceived or misled as to the character, strength, quality or quantity of the article.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. iSEXiSMTTH: I suppose that under clause 14, paragraph (a) it would be possible for the Governor in Council to regulate the size and weight of eggs whether sold separately or by the dozen?
Mr. MIDDLETiRO: Would not that be covered by section 6, which says that the articles shall be "so packed, marked or labelled" as not to be likely to deceive any person with respect to their true nature?
Newton Wesley Rowell: That is true. That section lays down the general principle and section 14 provides for making general regulations regarding all these matters. I also wish to amend section 14 by deleting subsection (c). I do it with some regret, but strong objection has been raised to the clause. On the other hand manufacturers have said to me that they consider it a valuable clause in the interest of honest business. But there is a strong objection to it, and so for this year I have decided to move to have it deleted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: From whom does the objection come?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Leading manufacturers all over the country have urged objection to

it on the ground that it is going too far in regulating the details of their business.
Agreed to.
'Mr. SEX SMITH: lit is under clause 14 that the Governor in 'Council regulates the weight of a dozen of eggs. There are regulations now prescribing what shall be the weight of a dozen of eggs, or of one egg and they were published in The Canada Gazette a year or two ago. Does it come under this section?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am very much interested in the decision of the minister in regard to this clause but I can really hear only a very little of the .conversation that goes on with regard to this Bill. I believe that other hon. members at this end of the Chamber will corroborate what I say in that regard. I would like to know what the decision is. Has the minister decided to eliminate subsection (c) of clause 14?
Mr. ROWiELL: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: That amendment has been carried.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I cannot hear what is going on from where 1 sit.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should like, with the permission of the committee, to add a subsection to section 15, to be subsection (e). It is as follows:
The Governor in Council shall have power to make regulations:
(e) tor deferring the operation of any portion of this Act until July.l, 1921, when necessary or expedient to allow the disposal of stock on hand.
In regard to some other section than the one which the hon. member (Mr. Pedlow) mentioned, it may be desirable to postpone the operation for a period at least to permit of the disposal of existing stocks. Therefore il am not limiting this to that particular section, but I am proposing to give the Governor in Council power to defer the operation of any portion of the Act for a period in case it is necessary to permit of the disposal of stock on hand.


Mr. GLASS:: I have had a complaint from the Toasted Corn Flakes people, of London, Ontario. They point out that the sales of their commodity run about a million packages a month, that these are scattered throughout the whole of the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Yukon, and that it is quite possible some packages 9 p.m. might be on the shelves of a grocer or dealer for some considerable time.
81*
The limitation placed by the minister would appear to be ample enough to permit the clearing off of any stocks on hand but I would ask him as to how literally the period "after the first July 1921" would be interpreted. For example, if it were found that some grocer had a package of corn flakes on his shelf for sale after that time, under the clause is there any power left to deal reasonably with an extreme case of that character?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is power in the
amendment I have just moved, which provides for deferring the operation of any portion of the Act to July first, 1921, for a purpose such as my hon. friend has mentioned.
Mr. -GLASS: That scarcely answers the question I put. The point is: Supposing it so happened that some one had in -his stock a package that should have been sold prior to the date mentioned,, -and yet it remained unsold at that time. What disposition is going to be made of that package?


William Stevens Fielding: Might I make the suggestion that the Governor in Council should be authorized to defer the enforcement of the Act from time to time up to a period not exceeding a certain date. That would give a little longer period.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In subsection (c) of section 15 I find a provision that strikes me as being one of the most pernicious things-that could be inserted in a Bill of this kind; that is, that one-half the fine shall go to the-informer. No more dangerous or troublesome provision could be enacted than this; it will create an army of spies and all kinds of troublemakers throughout the entire country. I move that this provision be struck out of the clause entirely-


Georges Henri Boivin: An amendment to this clause is already under consideration.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have moved to amend the clause as suggested by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) so as to read:
For deterring from time to time the operation of any portion of this Act until July 1st, 1922, where necessary or expedient, to allow of the disposal of stocks on hand.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that will meet the case.
Mr. MARC'IL: What about placing of the weight on any package? ,Is it dealt with under this Bill?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, -that is covered by subsection (b) of section 5 which we passed

to-night dealing with food when in package form.


William Stevens Fielding: The term "as necessary" is very emphatic in its nature and I would suggest "as deemed necessary". There is a shade of difference between the two.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We shall make it
"deemed necessary or expedient".


William Stevens Fielding: That leaves the matter to the judgment of the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: In answer to my hon.
friend (Mr. Pedlow) with respect to clause (e), the matter was discussed when the Bill was proviously in committee and his suggestion, as I recall it, was negatived. The clause in its present form'is not new legislation, lit has been in the Act for some time and is considered by the officers of the Department as a valuable and important provision of the Bill.


Mr. JACOBS:: Likewise by the informers.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well it may be by them, but hon. members will realize that frequently it is very difficult to get the evidence upon which to determine that there has been adulteration of food. I am sure all the members of the committee will agree that every facility should be given to prevent fraud of this kind in order that the people should have good and wholesome foods, and to discourage food adulteration that may be prejudicial to the public health. The manner in which the department gets evidence is not infrequently in the form of information that it will be wise for them to inspect certain premises, or a certain, man's place or plant, because of what is reported to be going on there. The department gets the information, and upon investigation finds that adulteration is going on and a prosecution is instituted. Under those conditions the provision is made that half the fine shall go to the informer. Such a provision has proved of value in prosecuting people who are seeking to violate the law and to do things to the prejudice of the public interest, and I think it would be a mistake to. eliminate it because of the difficulties in getting evidence otherwise.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 
Mr. BALDWIN:: I would like to ask
what is to prevent any evil disposed person from treating sugar and water, or taking butter and mixing oleomargarine with it and putting it on the market. It seems to me that a crook who gets half the fine could get the best of any man in the country if he was afforded opportunities for doing so. There must be restrictions in some direction. In the district of Montreal the Inland Revenue officers have done their duty very well, but I .think under such a provision as this we shall have more 'trouble than we can deal with, if we allow this kind of information to be proffered by irresponsible people.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I suggest that this
clause be amended so as to provide that the informer .may get' one-half the fine when the fine is $50, but that he shall not in any case get more than $25, whatever the fine may be.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When this matter was previously under consideration I contended that this clause was objectionable. This Parliament should not so legislate as to encourage men to spy upon others and try to gelt information with a view to getting them into trouble. We should be able to suppress misdemeajnours of this sort without offering to pay for the obtaining of evidence. If 'the minister finds in a year or two that he eannot get along without a provision like this, he can then have the Act amended, but I think it is worth our'

wfoile trying to get along without it. Twenty-five years ago it may have ^ been necessary, but we are advancing along these lines and we might well show our confidence in humanity by dropping this provision.


Georges Henri Boivin: The member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) has suggested an amendment to this clause, but the rules require that all amendments be put in writing. If he desires to propose his amendment I would ask him to repeat the motion for the benefit of the Chair and of Hansard.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: My motion is that subsection (c) of section 15 be struck out.
Motion negatived on division.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 17-^want of knowledge:
Mr. MeKENZIE:	We were promised
some consideration by the minister of this clause.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend raised the question whether some further procedure should not be provided under which a summons should be issued in the regular form for the calling of the third party before the court. I took the matter up with the Department of Justice, and they are of opinion that the clause as it stands is sufficient for the purpose. It is the same as the existing law and has been in force for some time. Prosecutions have been carried out under its provisions; the third party has been brought in, and I am informed that the procedure has never been questioned.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: This clause provides that if a man charged with an offence proves his innocence and is acquitted, he shall be liable to pay the costs of the prosecution. That provision is unfair and un-British and should not be incorporated in the Bill.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Is that not qualified by the latter part of the subsection?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The accused has to pay the cost of the prosecutor if he is acquitted; then he has to take proceedings against the third party. He Should not be compelled to proceed against any one else in order to clear himself of the charge laid against him; that is unnecessary and unfair.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That matter was discussed at length when the Bill was previously in committee, and on that occasion two or three amendments were made which, while not having the effect suggested by my hon.
friend, to some extent met the point which he has raised. We cannot consent to strike out the whole provision, for the simple reason that the man i$ guilty of violating the law; he is selling something contrary to the law. We permit him to escape the consequences, and the costs too, if he does two things,-if he establishes to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he bought the goods as being of the same character, quality, etc., as that on which he sold them, and also brings before the court, in the manner provided in the clause, the man who is responsible for selling them to him. That has been the law, as I said before, for many years, it has been found to be a salntory provision and to facilitate the enforcement of the law and the work of the department in reaching the party who is really responsible for the fraud on the public.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think the framer of this Bill has proceeded along entirely wrong lines. He has proceeded with the idea in mind that the entire commercial community of the country are immoral; that they are always looking for an opportunity to deceive and cheat the public, and that there is really no honesty among them. That is an entirely wrong position for the Department of Health to take, and they should adopt other lines. I do not know the tenor of the amendments that were made to this Bill when it was before the committee before, and it would, therefore, be impossible for me to discuss the subject intelligently at this moment; but I take issue with the Minister of Health (Mr. Rowell) when he says that it should be necessary to proceed in the first instance against the retailer who is handling this merchandise. If the goods in future are parcelled up, labelled and branded as the minister maintains in this Bill that they must be, then the merchandise itself will establish the source of their origin. It should, therefore, not be necessary for the department to proceed against the retailer who is entirely innocent, who has no knowledge of the exact condition under which the goods were manufactured; and if it is found by the department that the merchandise is defective in any respect, then it is the manufacturer who should be proceeded against and penalized, and the retailer should be only an incident in the prosecution as a witness against the manufacturer. This clause is a most pernicious one and should not be retained in the Bill. The fact that it has been in a former Act that is on the statute books, is no ground for its continuance. That the law has been wrong in the past is no reason why the law should be

continued in the present Bill. We are here to remedy any wrongs that exist at the present time, and I, therefore, move that this entire clause be struck out of the Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: It would not be in
order for the hon. member to negative an entire elauise. He has otherwise an opportunity of voting against it.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Then I move that subsection 1 of section 17 be amended by striking out all the (words after the word "prosecution" in the twenty-ninth line on page S of the Bill.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, I am
afraid I shall have for once to disagree with my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) and to agree with the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You are wrong.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not think I am, because I think the House will agree with me. The paragraph which the hon, member wishes to strike out is, as I understand it, not new law at all; it is law which is recognized in our Criminal Code in a large number of sections. The rule is that where a special defence is to be put in, the party who intends to avail himself of that special defence must give notice in writing to the prosecutor of his intention so to do. The prosecutor, in the absence of any such notice as that, will have his witnesses in court prepared to prove' the facts that he sets up, that is to say, that the goods have been misbranded and so on. This is a notice to the prosecutor that he must bring other testimony, testimony for which he would not be prepared unless he obtained this notice. I do not see that the defendant is going to suffer any hardship. The defendant, if he be a wise man, iwill naturally as soon as he is served with an information and a 'Complaint, consult his lawyer. His lawyer, who is supposed to know the law-that is a supposition, I will admit-will turn up section 17 of this measure, and on glancing at section 17 he will find that all that it is necessary to do is to notify the prosecutor that he intends to take advantage of that section and to prove that he obtained the goods in good faith. I do not think that works any hardship upon the defendant, and if the notice is not given, that works a hardship on the prosecutor. For that reason it seems to me that this clause of the Bill ought to go through as presented to the House by the minister.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I take exception to the position taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) in this respect. He claims that this provision is amongst the Acts of Parliament, and on the same ground as held by the minister, he claims that it should continue. My hon. friend is a lawyer and so is the Minister of Health, but there is *a difference betwen lawyers and men of common sense, sometimes. I quote no less an authority than the ex-leader of the Opposition for that statement. There is often a difference betwen lawyers and men of common sense. -


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. gentleman claim to have a monopoly of the latter?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have it in common with a number of my friends who are not lawyers. The. Bill makes provision that all of this class of merchandise shall be branded in a certain way; that the goods shall be put up in certaimshaped packages. The style of package, the colour of the wrapping, even the colour of the printing and the size of the type to be used are prescribed, and the name of the producer must be on the package in no uncertain manner; even a fictitious name will not be tolerated. Therefore, there should be no hardship in compelling the prosecutor, the Government's agent, to investigate that feature of the matter himself, and to go direct to the person responsible for the adulterated foodstuffs and the material that is supposed to be covered by this clause. Why should the Government impose a hardship on an innocent party when they have within their own jurisdiction the means of going direct to the party responsible? That would be direct action that is so much desired by my hon. friends to my left. Direct action would deal most effectively with the situation; it would remove from the retailer the odium of defending a prosecution of this kind where he is innocent, because he is not the manufacturer, and consequently under the provisions of the Bill not liable for the penalty, if the section is properly worded. I think it is only fair and reasonable,- notwithstanding the fact that this provision is in the Statutes of Canada, that is should be .struck out of this Bill.
Amendment declared lost.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I demand a vote.


Georges Henri Boivin: In order to take a vote it is necessary for five hon. members to rise, and only three had risen. The amendment was therefore declared lost,

ibut with "the unanimous consent of the ipommittee, a vote may be taken.
The committee divided on the amendment: Yeas 34, Nays 34.


Georges Henri Boivin: I might state that the rule concerning the vote of the chairman, in the case of a tie, is .that he should always volte in such a way as to leave the matter open for further consideration. Therefore, as the hon. member (Mr. Pedlow) will have the right to move his amendment on the third reading of the Bill, I vote against the amendment, and declare it loist.


Mr McKENZIE:: The hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) says that it is no hardship for the accused under this section to be proceeded against as in the section provided, that he has always at his elbow a lawyer who will advise him what to do. Possibly that is true of a cilty like Montreal and other large cilties, and the section might not work very much hardship there. But in the county of Victoria, which is a very .material part of my riding, there is no. lawyer at all. There are very few .criminals, m the county from Which I come, but if charges of this kind are made ag.amslt the people of Victoria county they will have to travel beyond its bounds to get -a lawyer and the
result will .be that this very convenient practice which my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) suggests would not be .resorted to. the farmer or the man who is accused would know nothing about the law, and the result would be that in nine cases out of ten a fine would be imposed and he would have to pay the shot. I do not think that is a desirable condition of affairs at all. This is supposed to be a court without technicalities into which any man can come and tell his story, and in which the magistrate deals with "the question upon its merits without any red tape of any kind, but that is not the case. But the main point which I raised the other night was as to the calling in of the third party. The minister and the hon. member (M.r. Jacobs) say that it is a common practice in criminal law to bring in a third party, and that they have the opinion of the Department otf Justice, on that point. There are two people in. the Department of Justice whose opinion I would respect. I have a great deal of respect for the opinion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), himself, and the greatest possible regard for the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, .and if the Minister of Justice or this deputy minister says that this is good and proper criminal procedure, one that has run
the gauntlet and stood the test before the higher courts, I will at once accept that opinion; but if i't is merely the ipse dixit of some clerk in the Department of Justice who has never had anything to do with the higher remedies in connection with criminal law, who never had a habeas corpus case before the supreme court or never went through the courts with a certiorari case, I would not have much regard for his opinion.


Samuel William Jacobs: Whalt about a summary conviction?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like my hon. friend to point to one case. There are cases of indictment where you could plead insanity. That would be open to my hon. friend if he were indicted. That is one defence that can be put up. Or he can raise the point that the case was tried before, that this was a second trial. There is a technical term for it which I shall not quote not being a good French or Latin scholar. Those are the only cases I am aware of. There may be other cases, but my hon. friend has noit quoted any. My point is this. Our criminal law demands that every man who is arrested, or summoned, or haled to a criminal court shall be given a clear and distinct opportunity of knowing iwhat is the charge. That charge is laid before the magistrate in distinct terms, and the terms of that offence are conveyed to the accused in a summons or warrant, as the .case may be, so that before 'he comes into the court he knows what he is charged with. But here we have simply the vague procedure that he shall be called into court. I think the minister and my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) will search in vain through all the criminal procedure in this country for a case where a man has been criminally charged and brought into court and fined simply under the procedure that he shall be called into court. It is provided here that he shall be called mlto court as hereinafter provided, but I find no procedure provided, in this Bill. If it is provided, I shall be glad to hear it. My conception of procedure under criminal law is that there shall be a regular information laid, and that the accused shall be fully acquainted with the charge so that he can come to court and have an opportunity of answering the charge. The procedure here would not (stand the test if it were challenged before the courts. Having put before the committee my views as to the proper procedure in connection with criminal charges I have nothing further to say.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will find the procedure set out in subsection 2 of |Uiis section, The party brought into court has knowledge of the complaint from the declaration that is sworn to by the person against whom the charge is laid. Subsection 2 says:
If the person presenting- such defence shall,
. upon his sworn declaration that he purchased the article in good faith, and as provided for in the last preceding subsection, obtain a summons to call such third party into the case, etc.
He would have to set out the terms of the preceding subsection, 'I should judge, in order to bring this subsection into operation. I can only repeat that the view of the officers of the department responsible for advising on the enforcement of this law is as I have already stated, and that actual cases have come up in the enforcement of the law where this procedure has been invoked. Such cases have actually come under the observation of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice and he has advised me that no Question has ever been raised as to the sufficiency of this section m providing the necessary procedure.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It still follows that the innocent party, after he has been convicted by the court, is compelled to turn prosecutor and bring an action against the manufacturer.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is not the effect of the section at all.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In order to establish his case, is it not necessary for him to do that?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Thomas Vien: The section will be almost without effect in practice, because in line 23 it is provided that the person accused "must have a written warranty to that effect,-' and must produce it.
Iar clauses in the Inland Revenue Act and, I believe, the Customs Act. There is relief to the accused, if he chooses to seek it, in the form of appeal, because this Act provides for "summary conviction" which brings in the provisions of the Criminal Code. All penalty clauses in the Bill, sections 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22, contain the words, "liable upon summary conviction," and section 706 of the Oiminal Code, part 15, applies to every case in which any person commits or is suspected of having committed any offence or act over which the Parliament of Canada has legislative authority, and for which such person is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment, fine, penalty or other punishment. It is clear, therefore, that any person charged with an offence under this Act as at present framed would have the right of appeal prescribed by part 15 of the Code, and that is considered sufficient in a case of this kind.
Mr. EDWARDiS': May I ask the minister for some information in regard to the caption of this section? I understand that, according to our constitution, our statutes must be printed in both French and English. Here is a word in italics which certainly is not English, and II do not think it is French. It may be Italian or Latin, for all I know. Will the minister tell us what it means?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Apart from legal phraseology, and to use the language of the street or the shop, "certiorari" is a proceeding whereby the proceedings in an inferior court are removed to a higher court, where their legality may be passed upon. I think that is as simple an explanation of the term as I can give.


Edmond Proulx: I suppose there will be an appeal under the Criminal Code?


Georges Henri Boivin: The section was
amended when the Bill was last in committee, and the following words were struck out:
With a written produces the said satisfactory to the
warranty to that effect, and warranty, or other evidence magistrate.


Mr. WEN:: I was not aware of the amendment.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Is not this section superfluous? If there is an appeal there is no certiorari at law, and if there is no certiorari there is no necessity for this section.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has been the law for a long time, and I think we had better leave it.
On section 18-no certiorari.


Mr. McEENZIE:: Will the minister explain why there shall be no certiorari?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Lucien Cannon: I think the latest jurisprudence has established the fact that there is always a certiorari where there is an excess of jurisdiction.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There would be certiorari where there was no jurisdiction.


Thomas Vien: Or excess of jurisdiction.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is aware that there is a certiorari under ordinary conditions unless a statutory bar in some form applies in many cases where there is not an excess of jurisdiction.


Lucien Cannon: The moment the applicant bases his demand for certiorari on want of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction he can obtain it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I presume it is useless to try to convince the minister of the desirability of omitting this clause 18. The minister is-well aware that only ten days are allowed for appeal. Under our provincial law the applicant has six months within which to bring certiorari. Under this Act a man may be badly treated by the bungling conviction of a magistrate, but if he allows the ten days to go by he has no right to appeal. He takes advice and finds that he has a remedy by way of certiorari. His lawyer will state a case, bring it before the judge, and have it reviewed. Thus he will have his remedy in that way. Why should that very handy and serviceable common law remedy be taken away?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The whole object of the
Bill is to secure the expeditious and effective enforcement of the law, and the law is for the protection of the public. If a man convicted has any real defence on the merits, or a case which he considers good at law, he can appeal under the provisions of the Criminal Code. The facts can be gone into on the appeal and the merits of the case determined. If he is guilty the conviction will be affirmed and if he is not guilty the appeal will be allowed. Surely in enforcing a law of this character it is not in the public interest that- a man >vho is really guilty should be permitted to escape punishment by reason of some technical error in the proceedings which might be removed from the inferior court* by certiorari. If there is any merit in his case he can get it adjudicated upon by an appeal under the code. In view of the fact that that has been the law for so long a period not only with reference to this lAcit but with reference to the Customs and Inland Revenue Acts, in order that these laws designed in the public interest might be enforced as against parties violating them, it is not in the public interest to eliminate this provision from the Bill.
If the magistrate is proceeding without authority the man still has his right of certiorari.


Lucien Cannon: In the Quebec district
the court of King's Bench generally sits twice a year. Suppose a man is convicted after the term of the court is held; he certainly suffers a hardship by being prevented from taking an appeal before 'a court of higher jurisdiction. He will have to wait until the next criminal term is held. In the meantime will he be bailed out? Or is there any provision in the Act with regard to a man who is condemned to jail?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The code would apply
in that case, just as it does in every other case that comes under the code.


Thomas Vien: Except certiorari?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Except that the certiorari is removed from this case as it is in many others. If the code is not so framed as to provide reasonable facilities for appeal it should be amended * instead of providing a special procedure for this Act. A law that is sufficient to protect parties who desire to appeal under other Acts should be sufficient to protect them under this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-voluntary payments:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the minister
was to consider that clause.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite prepared, if
the committee thinks it desirable, that the clause should go out. I intimated the other evening that it is open to objection that there should be a discretion in the minister or any responsible officer of the department to allow a man to pay a fine without prosecution. But if this is eliminated you would have to proceed against
10 p.m. the man in due course of law before you could accept money from him and let him escape the further consequences. Under the law as it stood you could let a man off if he simply paid the cost of the examination, the fees of the analyst and the expense of taking the samples. This is more strict than the existing law but it is open to objection and if hon. gentlemen object I am quite willing to allow the section to be struck out.


Lucien Cannon: If I interpret the clause rightly it means that any sum can be given. Supposing a man were to send $10 to the minister, he would have his member interfere and it would become a matter of poli-

tical patronage. That man would get off with a payment of ?10 whereas his neighbour would be brought before the court and would have to pay the full penalty.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not so understand
the clause. He would have to pay a sum within the penalty provisions of the Act. It would not be the maximum. The minimum might be accepted under the provision.


Lucien Cannon: The clause reads:
It any sum of money is already paid to and accepted by the minister as a penalty-
The minister has discretionary power; he can decide what sum is to be accepted ,as a penalty. ,


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not the least objection to amend it by inserting words that will make it clear that the minister has no power to accent any sum lower than the minimum penalty provided under the Act. I would propose that it be made to read:	.
In any sum of money within the limits of the penalties provided under this Act.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I really' think that the
money should be paid to the Receiver General. I am not questioning the integrity of the President of the Privy Council, because he is a lawyer. I make the distinction. As a lawyer I believe him to be an honest man but I think it would be well to regulate so that it will be paid to the Receiver General, because we might have some other gentleman as President of the Privy Council or Minister of Health.


Newton Wesley Rowell: You could put in the
words' " made to the department." Of course it goes to the Receiver General but it must go through some department. The Receiver General does not take money from any man who comes along.


William Stevens Fielding: He never refuses anything.	^


Newton Wesley Rowell: lit has got to be paid in respect of some particular m-aitter, and I am advised that the regular form is to pay it through the department. That is the reason the section has been framed in this form by the Department of Justice and in that respect it is like the 'Customs and Inland Revenue Acts.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose the minister cannot guarantee absolute honesty in the officers of his department, who are all over the country from coast to coast, any more than any other department of the 'Government., or any institution can, that has. the 
hiring of a large army of men. It is quite open to an unscrupulous official to go into a store or factory and, after imposing a penalty upon the guilty party so manipulate matters that he may personally profit by the exercise of that jurisdiction. Ft is certainly not the intention that these officers shall be going round the country, dealing with every offence, taking the fines and handing out some form of receipt that they think will answer. I submit that temptation should not be put in the way of officials to act improperly. Neither is it fair that a man who is an informer, and who makes his living in that way, should adopt any subterfuges of this kind by which he may gather and give information to the minister and get no part of the fine at all.
I suppose therefore a regulation will he made that where a conviction has been secured upon a tip obtained from somebody, one-half of the fine shall go to the person giving the tip.
On a previous occasion I pointed out to the minister the possibility of payments being paid and thus permitting the guilty party to escape conviction for a second offence and the imposition of a higher fine. I thought the minister then agreed with me, and that it was most desirable1 that in the case of violations of this Act the proceedings- should be taken hr regular and proper form before a magistrate. The provision referred to is a dangerous- one. It may have been for years in the Act, I do not know whether it has been or not, buit in my opinion it is- a departure from the usual way of, im,posing penalties for violations of the law.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I propose to amend clause 19 by inserting after the -word "money" in the first line thereof the following words: "within the limits of the penalties provided by this Act".


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is -the meaning
of that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It means between the
maximum and the minimum.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there invariably a
minimum?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is a minimum in
every case.


Edmond Proulx: -Could not the power to decide whether a store should be inspected or not be given to the deputy minister? The minister will be very busy and he will not have time to look after thes-e minor matters.
Amendment agreed to and section as amended agreed to.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to add as section 27:
Nothing in this Act shall repeal or modify any provision of "The Meat and Canned Foods Act" or " The Fish Inspection Act."
It was not intended toy Ithis Bill to interfere with these other Acts at all and I am not aware that there is anything in it that does. Nevertheless this may toe of value.
Mr. MeKENZIE: The last time this Bill was in commission I drew the minister's attention to the fact that we are providing for second offences in. this Bill. In connection with the Temperance: Act there is a provision in connection with second offences as to how proceedings shall toe taken for such offences. In the Criminal Code there is no such procedure so far as I know. I would therefore like to know how the minister intends to furnish a proper form of procedure for second offences? '


Newton Wesley Rowell: lit is considered desirable to have a .provision for second offences. My hon. friend will recall there are many Acts where the second offence is provided for.1 For example, there is our own Liquor Act,' the Opiuim and Drug Act, and other Acts of the kind where heavier penalties are1 imposed for the repetition of ithe offence.1 Then there are certain cases under the Criminal' Code, as I recall it, where provision is made for a second offence. It is an additional deterrent against a repetition of the violation of the law by the guilty party to have, an, increased penalty.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	The minister was
evidently not paying any attention to what I said. I am not finding fault with making provision for second offences; what I am saying is that there is no machinery here to prove them. Under the Temperance Act the second, offence is proven toy the production of a certificate of 'conviction from the magistrate who made it, showing clearly that the party was previously convicted on a certain date for the same offence with which he is again charged. That is, the fact that he has .previously been found guilty of the offence charged is put in as evidence in .proving the second offence. I do not know whether under the Criminal Code there is any such procedure.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: Speaking from recollection and not with any certainty, it is by certificate under the Code just as imy hon. friend says it is toy certificate under the Temperance Aot. That is my present recollection.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	Perhaps it is. I was
speaking of (breaches of the Temperance Act as to which the procedure referred to would be applicable.
Mr, ROWELL:	The procedure in this
case is the same as in other violations of the law under the Code. That is all I can say at present.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported and amendments read the first and second times and concurred in.
Georges Henri Boivin: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not object to the third reading of the Bill, but there has been a good deal of discussion to-day and I think it would be well if the third reading were held over so that there might be some opportunity of examining the amendments which the minister has introduced.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so. Next sitting of the House.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Miscellaneous-Provisional bonus allowance for the inside and outside Services of the Civil Service, to he paid to such persons and classes of persons, in such amounts and at such times as the Governor in Council may determine, $12,500,000.
Edmond Proulx: Is this the same as last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is the provisional bonus which is being granted to civil servants. Payment are now due, and it is desired that the matter should toe expedited. The amounts are not being increased.


William Stevens Fielding: Speaking generally, is it the same bonus that was granted a year ago?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The same
amount.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is the bonus to be paid on the same system as that -which was followed last year, or is it to be a flat bonus?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There will probably be .some minor variation in the bonus.
I do not know that we can say very much about the exact details, but speaking generally it will be very largely the same.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Sometimes it is enlightening to say that we are doing the same thing as we did last year. But some of us have no great knowledge of the principle upon which this bonus was paid last year. Will the minister explain in detail what that principle was?


Newton Wesley Rowell: At the request of the Minister of Finance I will explain the basis upon which the bonus was paid last year, as the matter came under my observation. All employees in the inside and the outside service who were heads of households and whose salaries did not exceed $3,000 a year received a bonus. The maximum bonus of $420 applied to- all employees who ;were heads of households and who received less than $1,200 a year. That $420 was scaled down by gradual steps until at $3,000 the amount of the bonus was $60. The bonus diminished as the amount of the salary increased. As applied to salaries from $1,200 to $1,320, the bonus to those who were heads of households was $396; from $1,320 to $1,440, $372; from $1,440 to $1,560, $348; from $1,560 to $1,680, $324. I need not read them all; the .scale downward proceeds in that way until you reach those receiving $3,000 a year.


William Stevens Fielding: What about the smaller salaries?


Newton Wesley Rowell: All who received less than $1,200 got $420 if they were heads of households. For those who were not heads of households the maximum bonus w.a.s $252, which was paid to all who received less than ' $960, subject to the exceptions I Shall mention. Then, from $960 the bonus to this class was scaled down until it reached $60 to the salary of $1,800; no bonus was paid to any employee in the inside or the outside service who was not head of a household and who received $1,800 or more. The scaling down was gradual, just as in the case of those who were heads of households. That was subject to these exceptions: Any person not the head of a household and who was over eighteen and under twenty-one years of age received a flat bonus of $150; those 
under eighteen received no bohus. Employees who were receiving current rates of pay, who were paid .by the day or week, received no bonus.


Mr. POWER:: Was not the bonus granted to such employees later?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not if they were receiving current rates of pay.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think that some of them were granted the bonus afterwards.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If they were, they did not get it according to the terms of the regulations. There is no justification for paying a bonus to an employee receiving current rate of wages. The bonus was intended to cover the increased cost of living and was based upon a sum which was assumed to represent, to some extent at least, the abnormal cost of living due to the war. Any one receiving the current rate of wages would be assumed to have received in that wage what would be equal to salary and bonus in the case of the other employees of the service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does the minister mean by "current rate of wages?"


Newton Wesley Rowell: Take, for instance, men employed as workmen-carpenters, I would say; men employed in the construction of this building. If such men were paid by the Government and were receiving the current rate o.f wages, they would not be entitled to bonus; they would be getting the same rate of pay as people outside the public service. I think there was one further qualification-the bonus was not paid to part time employees, as I understand it. It was paid only to those giving continuous service.


William Stevens Fielding: You would think that if a man receiving $1,200 a year or more needed the bonus, a .man receiving only $300 or $400 would be even more in need of it. Unfortunately such a .man is met with the statement: Oh well, you are not supposed to give your whole time to the service; therefore you are not entitled to the bonus. As a .matter of fact, I am informed by the minister of the department concerned, to whom I made application in the matter and who was kind enough to give me the information, that that class of employees are not getting any bonus. I think there is something to be said in favour of that class of man getting a bonus. If he is not getting a larger salary, that is presumably because the quantity of work he has to do is not very great. On the other

hand, that man, getting a small salary, very often finds it rather inconvenient to take other employment. The nature of his duties may be such that although he may not be required to work hard, he may be obliged to be around all the time. Let me cite the case of a sub-collector of customs who has to be on hand at all times if he does his duty and who gets $300 or $400 a year It he applies for a bonus, he is told that he cannot get a bonus because he is receiving such a small salary, but the man thinks that is a good reason why he should get a-bonus. I invite the attention of the minister to that class of employee because I think he has a fair argument for getting a bonus. If his duties were such that he could go out and take other employment, there might be some ground for refusing to grant him a bonus; but such men, owing to the .nature of their duties are not at liberty to take up other occupations in the broadest sense of the word, and I think a very good case could be made out in favour of their receiving a bonus.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member will, I am sure, realize that the reason why a man does not get a bonus is not because he is paid a small sum, but because under his contract of hiring with the Government, he has not to give his whole time to the Government; he is free to take on other work. There is a distinction between a whole-time employee and one employed a few hours a day.


William Stevens Fielding: A collector of customs
must be on hand day by day to respond to any business that may arise, and it is absurd to tell him that he can take other employment. Theoretically, he can, but practically he cannot. In many other classes of the service, a man might be able to take other employment. In this instance, the volume of work to be done is not sufficient to induce the Government to pay a large salary, but the conditions of the work are such that the employee is not as free as other men to take other employment. He could not go away from his community; he could not undertake to drive a coach; he could not do anything that would take him away from home. He has to hang around, even if there is nothing doing, in the expectation that something might arise. Where a man's duty is of that character, the fact that he gets a small salary is not a reason for penalizing him; it is a reason for giving him a helping hand.


John Dowsley Reid: I remember, when I
was Minister of Customs, the different cases
the hon. gentleman mentioned. 'Customs officers sometimes get as little as $50 and up to $300, but in every case some one is appointed who lives in the district, who has other business, or who really has this as a side issue. An office of that kind is open for the convenience of the public, and in every case the officer has something else to do. An officer of that kind is not appointed for the purpose of giving his whole time, and if I remember aright, the Customs Act mentions the fact-a man getting under $1,000 may be employed in other work. If you were to start giving this bonus of $420 to these men who are employed in doing other work outside, I do not know where the matter would end. Hon. members can see how much this bonus amounts to in regard to the permanent employees, and I do not see how we could be justified in considering these cases because these men are really not giving their whole time like regular employees of departments.


William Stevens Fielding: A man getting only $50 a year would be manifestly engaged in such a side business that the argument of my hon. friend would perhaps apply, but I do not think it is a fair answer to the sub-collectors of customs who are getting three or four hundred dollars. I do not think they are as free to go away and take other employment as the man who has a fifty dollar job.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There might be some exception to the rule, and I shall be very happy to consider the details of any cases the hon. member is kind enough to bring up. The matter is one of regulation.


William Stevens Fielding: In all these cases, I much prefer to go to the minister privately to bringing the matter up in Parliament. I spoke to the Minister of Customs about the matter, and he said that the general rule was that the men undertook that work as a part service and that he was very sorry he could not give them the bonus. I am, however, content to accept the assurance of the minister that the matter will be looked into.


Newton Wesley Rowell: As the Minister of Finance has indicated, there will be some revision of the regulations in order to secure in some respects a more equitable adjustment in a number of these cases. Therefore, ythe ease to which my hon. friend has referred will be considered when the revision of the regulations comes up, which will probably be in the course of a few days.

(Mr. FIELDING:	In the distribution of
this bonus?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. The Civil Service
Commission is now working on the revision of the existing regulations, and we shall bring the matter to their attention to see whether there may be some subcollectors and others who deserve consideration. The matter would, however, have to be worked out within the Estimate now before the committee. The Government is of the opinion that this amount is as much as they would be justified in asking the committee to vote for bonuses to the Inside and outside services. Some adjustment may be required in regard to those who are heads of households, and that is under consideration at the present time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the Minister of
Finance or the President of the Council tell me what period is covered by this
bonus?
\


Newton Wesley Rowell: The present fiscal year
from the 1st April, T920, to the 1st April, 1921.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood that these bonuses were merely makeshifts until the proper scale under the reclassification came into force, and we have been informed that the reclassification is to come into force as from the 1st April, 1919. Why should the scale of salaries mentioned in the reclassification and these bonuses continue to run concurrently? Why is there a supplementing of that scale of salaries? Is there to be no end to this thing at all? Is it to be perpetual?


Newton Wesley Rowell: ' My hon. friend is in error in one respect. It is true that reclassification is to come into effect as of the 1st April, 1919, under the Bill now before the House, the Civil 'Service Amendment Act; but the scale of salaries fixed in that reclassification was fixed, not on the present high cost of living, but based on the former schedule in the old Act, the former classification, plus the probable normal increase in the cost of living. In fixing the salaries in this classification, the Civil Service Commission intimated that in order to pay the 'Civil Servants what they would consider fair remuneration, it would be necessary to supplement them by a bonus, having regard to the present very high cost of living. Either that must be done, or the Civil Service Commission, in recommending a schedule of salaries to the Government and to the House, would have recommended a higher schedule than that included in the classification, and it was deemed wiser not

to fix salaries on the Ibasis of the present exceedingly high cost of living, because we hoped a year ago and two years ago, and still hope, although our hopes apparently are not likely to be realized immediately, that there would be a decided lowering in the cost of living. It was thought easier to deal with the matter by way of bonus pending a lowering in the exceedingly high cost of, living. I quite agree with my hon. friend that the time must come, and very soon, when the bonus should be dispensed with and the permanent salary fixed, but I think on the whole it is probably economy and in the public interest not to fix salaries at the present time, but rather to deal with the question in this abnormal period by a bonus.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Are we to take it for granted that reclassification has not yet come into effect?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I did not say that.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am just asking the minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The reclassification is being put into effect day by day. The law is in force now as from the first of April 1920, and there is a Bill before the House to make it retroactive so that it shall be deemed as having been in force as from the first of April, 1919. That will be of real benefit to the service, because in many classes there is quite a mateiial increase in salary as compared with the old classification. This bonus is based on the reclassification, and is recommended to the Government as being necessary to reasonably supplement the salaries fixed in the reclassification.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What does the minister understand by "the head of a family" in connection with the distribution of the bonus? Bonuses are paid in some eases to some who are really not the heads of families, .while others who are practically the chief support of a family do not get the same amount of bonus. There has been considerable confusion in the past.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I regret that I have not here the definition of the head of a household, but I can tell my hon. friend in a general way what it includes. Every married man, every man who has a family to support is the head of a household, but it is broader than that. If a daughter working in the public service ii supporting invalid parents who have not other means of support she is deemed the head of the household for the purpose of the bonus,

and instead of getting the bonus which a single person would receive, she would receive the same bonus as a married person because in that family she is the supporting head of the household. I think it is true that in the administration of the bonus under the regulations which were worked ,out possibly theTe have been some cases where bonuses have been paid as to the head of a household where they should not have been paid. That is one of the regulations that is now under consideration with a view to modification, in order to guard against the payment of bonuses under conditions where it should not be paid.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Following that up-and
it was the point I had in my mind when I rose first-if the expenses of the household are evenly divided between two young girls, both working in the public service, would they both be classed for the purposes of the bonus as the head of a family, or only one of them?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should think that in that case neither would be classed as the head of the household, and probably each would only get a single woman's bonus. It depends, of course, upon the exact conditions in each case.


Thomas Vien: Who drafted the regulations under which the bonuses were paid last year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The regulations were
recommended to the Government by the Civil Service Commission, and finally approved by the Government under Order in Council.


Thomas Vien: Is the same procedure to be followed this year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, the commission is now working on the regulations, and I anticipate that there will be some modifications along the lines that have already been indicated.


Thomas Vien: Can the Governor in Council modify the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission?	f


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, absolutely?


Thomas Vien: So the Governor in Council has a kind of arbitrary power in the distribution of the bonus?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Governor in Council can change the regulations if they see fit .to do so, but, of course, they have no view except to get the most equitable distribution possible of this money, among the
members of the service, Inside and Outside. That 's the procedure under which the bonus was distributed last year and will be distributed in the coming year.


Thomas Vien: Did the Governor in Council modify the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission last year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot recall in detail further than this: As a matter of fact, the recommendations or suggestions of the Civil Service Commission were discussed with the minister responsible for administering this branch of the service, last year the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and when a conclusion was reached as to what would be the most equitable system for distribution, the recommendation was made and the Order in Council based on that was put through. I do not recall that any recommendation made by the commission was formally changed. I think the matter was discussed and an agreement arrived at, which was then embodied in an Order in Council, that is as near as I can recall.


Thomas Vien: Are the recommendations made by the commission general in their application, or does the commission make particular repommendations with respect to certain individuals in the service.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There are no recommendations relating to particular individuals in the Civil Service. The regulations are general in terms, and apply to all who come within the different classes provided. All that the regulations do is to define the classes, and the amount of bonus paid depends upon the class in which the individual falls.


Thomas Vien: I would point out that in the distribution last year there was a certain injustice because the bonus gradually decreased up to $3,000, and those receiving ' above $3,000 received no bonus at all. The civil servants whose salaries range between $3,000 and $6,000 deserve particular consideration. Last year Parliament was asked to vote an increase of $1,000 in the salary of the deputy ministers of the various departments. Formerly the deputy ministers had received $5,000 per annum, but with this increase last year they now receive $6,000. We did not find fault with the Government in taking that action, I think the increase was unanimously voted. But surely if the deputy ministers could not live on $5,000 a year, but required an additional $1,000 salary, the civil servants who receive anything between $3,000 and $6,000 should

also be considered. Generally speaking they aie men of great experience and of great value to the service, many of them having professional and. technical qualifications which would command a higher salary in the outside world than they are receiving with the Government. The evidence of this is that the Government has lost this year, as it lost last year, a number of civil servants possessing technical or professional qualifications. I would call the minister's attention to that point and would asik that those civil servants whose salaries range between three thousand and six thousand dollars be given some consideration in the distribution of the bonus.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That very matter is
under consideration in the revision of the regulations at the present time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Ilf I remember rightly this is the second time we are making a provision of this kind by estimate, il should like to know if the minister has the Order in Council upon which we are proceeding. If it is not too long 1 think he might read it, because I am anxious to know whether it is based upon the War Measures Act or whether it has an authority under some Act of Parliament. I do not recollect any Act -which authorizes the Order in Council. The minister might tell us whether there are any recitals regarding the time during which the Order in Council shall be in force. Is it to be in force until .the Civil Service Act comes into effect?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The estimate provides
that the amount:
be paid to such persons and classes of persons, in such amounts, and such times as the Governor-in-Council may determine.
The estimate of last year, as I recall it,' is in substantially the same language, and it is pursuant to the authority given by the vote that the money is distributed by the Governor in Council. It does not depend on the War Measures Act. X have the Order in Council relating to the distribution of the bonus last year and shall be glad to read it; or .by unanimous consent of the committee it might he put on Hansard.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: lit would be useful.


Newton Wesley Rowell: With the unanimous consent of the committee 1 shall be pleased to have it incorporated in Hansard.
The committee gave unanimous consent.
[Mr. Vien.j
At the Government House at Ottawa, Tuesday, the 15th day of July, 1919. Present.
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council.
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, is pleased to sanction the accompanying regulations for a Cost of Living Bonus for employees in the Civil Service of Canada prepared by the Civil Service Commission and approved by a Sub-Committee of Council, and the same are hereby sanctioned accordingly.
His Excellency in Council is further pleased to authorize and doth hereby authorize the various departments to prepare forthwith lists of the payments provided by the said regulations and to direct that, upon approval of such lists by the Civil Service Commission, such payments shall be made from the moneys provided for that purpose by Parliament at its last session.
Rodolfhe Boudreau,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
Regulations for a cost of living bonus for employees in the Civil Service of Canada prepared by the Civil Service Commission.
Cost of Living Bonus.
Section 1. In addition to all salaries now, received by the employees in the Civil Service, a special cost of living bonus for the fiscal year commencing April 1. 1919, shall he paid to all persons employed in the Civil Service in Canada, in the groups named below, subject to the provisions and exceptions enumerated. Provided, that no section of these regulations shall be construed to mean that an employee qualified hereunder to participate in the bonus, shall receive a continued salary and bonus for the present fiscal year less than the combined salary bonus, and living allowance entitled to be received by the employee for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1919.
Bonus groups.	'
Section 2. Group 1 (a) Any person the supporting head of a household, receiving less than $1,20>0 per year for full time service and not otherwise excluded by the provisions of these regulations, shall receive a bonus for the fiscal year of $420 payable in monthly instalments of $35 each. For the purposes of these regulations a married man supporting a family shall be considered the head of a household. The Civil Service Commission shall have power to make regulations to be approved by the Governor in Council, classifying as heads of households other persons, the sole support of dependents, who, in the opinion of the commission, are subject to responsibilities equivalent to those of the head of a family, and on the basis of such regulations shall have power to make rulings as to fhe receipt of bonus by persons coming under such regulations.
(b) Any person the supporting head of a household, receiving $1,200 or over and less than $3,'000 per year for full-time service, and not otherwise excluded by the provisions of these regulations, shall receive for the fiscal year, the bonus indicated or such person's salary group.

Receiving	TABLE	A. Bonus	In monthlyan income	and less	for fiscal	paymentsof	than	year	of$1,200	$1,32-0	$396	$331,320	1,440	372	311,440	1,56-0	348	291,560	1,680	324	271,6S'0	1,8-00	300	251,8-00	1,920	276	231,92-0	2,-040	252	212,040	2,160	228	192,16-0	2,280	204	172,280	2,40-0	18'0	152,4-00	2,520	156	132,520	2,64-0	132	112,640	2,7-6-0	108	92,76-0	2,880	84	72,880	3,00-0	60	5
Group II (a) Any person 21 years of age or over not the head of a household, receiving less than $9-6-0 per year for full time service, and not otherwise excluded by the provisions of these regulations, shall receive a bonus for the fiscal year of $252 payable in monthly instalments of $21 each.
(b) Any other person 21 years of age or over not the head of a household, receiving $960 or over and less than $1,800 per year for full-time service and not otherwise excluded by the provisions of these regulations, shall receive for the fiscal year the bonus below indicated for such person's salary group.
Table B.
Receiving	Bonus	In monthlyan income	and less	for fiscal	paymentsof	than	year	of$ 06-0	$l,0S-0	$222	$18 501,08-0	1,200	192	16 001,20-0	1,320	162	13 5-01,32-0	1,440	132	11 001,44-0	1,560	102	8 50' 1,560	1,68-0	72	6 001,68-0	1,800	42	3 50Group III.	Any person	less than	21 years of
age and eighteen years or over, not the head of a household, receiving less than $1,200 for full time service, and not otherwise excluded by the provisions of these regulations, shall receive a bonus for the fiscal year of $150 payable in monthly instalments of $12.50 each.
Provisional Bonus Deducted.
Section 3. The amount of the first current payment made to the employee under these regulations shall be determined as the difference between the amount of the bonus as computed under the provisions of these regulations, and the total amount of the War Bonus already paid to the employee for the period. Provided, that where the total amount of War Bonus paid for the period is in excess of the amount of bonus as computed under the provisions of these regulations, payment shall be made in the future on the basis of these regulations, but no section therein contained shall be construed as requiring the refund by the employee of any part of such war bonus, rightfully received by the employee.
Change of Employee's Bonus Group.
Section 4. When a change in the salary of an employee entails a change in the amount of bonus due such employee, the bonus shall be computed at the new' rate, as shown by the employees' Service Record of the Civil Service Commission or by the records of the depart-82
ment, for the wrhole month next following such change of salary. When a change in the age of an employee, or in his responsibility to dependents, changes the amount of the bonus due the employee, the following proof of such change of bonus group shall be submitted to the Civil Service Commission: (1) the statutory declaration of the employee, stating and affirming the truth of the facts constituting such change in status; (2) a statement by the head of the branch in which the person is employed, that he is satisfied as to the validity of the change of status of the employee; (3) such additional proof as the head of the branch may require the employee to submit, or as may be necessary in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission, to establish the validity of the change of status.
Definition of Income of Employee.
Section 5. In determining the income received by an employee all salary, wages, piecework earnings, and special allowance for all purposes except payment for overtime, received by the employee from the Dominion Government shall be included.
Living Allowances.
(Section 6.-In the case of a person receiving living allowances, such as quarters, food, and so forth, in kind or in money, the value of such allowances as computed by .the head of the department and approved by the Civil Service Commission, shall be considered as constituting part of the total income received by the employee, but there shall be deducted from the bonus of the employee such proportion of the total bonus as the value of such living allowance may bear to the total income so computed.
Absences.
.Section 7.-Absences on leave with pay of the type customarily allowed by the department to salaried employees, but not to exceed one month in a six month period, shall not be considered as affecting the status of the employee as a full time employee.
Salaries in Excess of the Classification.
iSection 8.-Subject to the provisions of section I, an employee receiving, a salary in excess of the amount provided by the pending Civil Service Classification for the class in which he is employed, when this classification becomes effective, shall receive only so much salary and bonus total as would be provided by the maximum salary for the class plus such bonus as the bonus group of the employee would then entitle him to.
Time of Payment.
(Section 9.-Bonus shall be paid on the fifteenth day of each calendar month (or other regular pay-day of the department) for the calendar month preceding such pay-day. For new employees entering the service, current bonus shall be computed from the date of entering the service, provided that no payments shall be made until the employee has been in service a full month, and that employees remaining in the service for less than a month shall not be entitled to receive bonus.
Method of Payment.
Section 1-0.-Payments of bonus made under these regulations shall in each case be made by separate cheque or pay enevelope, specifically designated by the title '*Cost of Living Bonus."



Misrepresentation of Bonus Group.
Section 111.-Proof of wilful falsification or mis-statement of facts, of a nature intended to enable a Civil Service employee to obtain a bonus in excess of that to which he is entitled, shall constitute grounds for dismissal from the service.
Extinguishment of Bonus by Salary Increases.
Section 1,2.-In the case of any general increases in the class salary rates of an occupational group, the amounts of such increases shall be deducted from the bonuses paid to the members of the group receiving the increase. These regulations shall automatically cease to operate for any occupational group, or for all groups, when the amount of increases so given shall be sufficient to extinguish the bonuses for the group or groups.
Persons Receiving "Prevailing Rates."
Section 13.-Persons whose rates of pay is determined as the prevailing rate paid for similar work in the region in which they work, shall not be entitled to participation in the bonus.
.	Part Time.
Section 14.-Persons whose duties do not require their full time, or whose public functions are incidental to their occupation, or who are permitted while in the service to accept employment or engage in commerce or industry, shall not be entitled to participation in the bonus. Provided, that persons giving their full time to the service for periods of a month or more, shall receive bonus pro rata for the period worked, in accordance with the provisions of these regulations.
Revision and Interpretation.
Section 15.-The provisions of these regulations shall be subject to such revision and compensatory adjustment as may be equitable and necessary when the pending classification becomes effective for any portions of the service. For the purposes of departmental uniformity in administration, the Civil Service Commission shall make such application or interpretation of these regulations as may be necessary, subject to such rulings as may be made by the Governor in Council.


Mr. J. E. WILSON:: Prior to the reclassification the maximum salary of letter carriers was $960. What increase do they receive under the new classification? Are they still in receipt of $960, the wage paid "them when fifty cents purchased as much as a dollar does at the present time? It would seem to me that $420 would not be sufficient to make up the difference between the cost of living now and what it was iwhen $960 was regarded as an adequate salary for these men. It strikes me that i$420 is not nearly enough to make up the difference in the cost of living, particularly for a man with a family, and it is only the heads of families who are eligible for this allocation.


Mr.   EOWELL@: Under the old classification the salaries of letter carriers ran from $600 odd to $939, as I recall the figures. iThe maximum under the new classification

is $1,260, over $300 more than the old maximum. iSo that a letter carrier who was receiving the maximum say for five years prior to this classification will start in at $1,160 as at the 1st of April, 1919. If he had been receiving the maximum for five years he would be eligible for another $120 on the 1st of April, 1920, making $1,280; and then he would be entitled to this bonus. ,He would not get quite $420, because he would be receiving more than $1,200; but his salary plus bonus would give him $1,656, I think. The House will agree that no just ground of objection can be taken to that amount as the salary of letter carriers in Canada at the present time. I make this statement because there has been a good deal of criticism in the press in various sections of the country with reference to the salaries paid by the Government to letter carriers. I think that, under the reclassification, and with the bonus, the letter carriers come out about as well as any other class in the service, if not better.


Donald Sutherland: Are they furnished ,with uniforms?


Mr.   EOWELL@: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: Two uniforms?


Mr.   EOWELL@: I do not know. Hon.
members must bear in mind that in the *case which I have mentioned I have given the maximum. Those who have not been ;so long in the service will draw something less than the figures I have given, as also those who are not heads of households.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must call the attention of the minister to the information .which is furnished the committee in the Estimates before the Chair. I think it is an objectionable way of legislating to put a few lines like these in 'an Estimate and give them the same force as an Act of Parliament; because it must be regarded as an ..Act of Parliament, otherwise the Order in (Council could not be based upon it. This :is a large amount of money, and all the information which is given us is the statement that it is for a provisional bonus .allowance for the Inside and Outside Services of the Civil Service to be paid to such persons and classes of persons and in such amounts and at such times as the Governor in Council may determine. I submit that this is a very objectionable way of making large expenditures of this kind.
We usually have Orders in Council based upon the statute and when we put that statute through the House giving the council power to make regulations the

substance of those regulations is largely set forth in the statute itself and we have a fairly good idea of the kind of regulations that will be made because they must be in compliance with the statutes. This is a very meagre basis indeed and affords very little information to the House as to what these regulations will be. After getting all the information I could for the minister I must say that I feel that I am very much in the dark as to how this money will be expended. We have a classification which nobody on earth seems to be able to comprehend, and with that incomprehensible system of salaries this is put into the hands of some poor man [DOT] and he is told to go to it and divide this money amongst hundreds and thousands of men and women employed in the Government. For a long time we have been trying to reach a proper basis for the Civil Service and after the very large amount of money that was spent on commissions,. and after engaging the very best talent we could get not only in our own country but in other countries, it is rather disappointing that we should be just as badly off as ever we were and that we must adopt these Orders in Council and [DOT] proceed by the old rule of thumb by which we granted this bonus last year. , Perhaps the minister will tell the committee how much more than the $12,500,000 we pay to the class of civil servants who are to get this bonus. We may at some time get that information. Possibly it is not available to the minister now. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) told us this afternoon that he est evidence of economy should show itself est evidence of economy should show itsell in the ranks of the Government we should try to encourage it. I would like to see if any economies can be effected in regard to the Civil Service as well as in other lines by reason of the new blood that has been introduced into the Finance Department. Men at the first blush are more shocked with enormities than they will be after they become familiar with them, and therefore let us hope before the new minister gets crusted,, hardened and accustomed to these enormities we may have some slight improvement and that he may inquire how much money we are paying out to the civil servants. We have been for years talk-11 p.m. ing about reform in the Civil Service.
This classification was to do a lot of weeding out, and to do away with the supernumeraries and a great many people who were drawing money and whose services we could dispense with in order that they 821
might employ themselves in some other way. The other day we had this subject up irf the House and I think we had some promise from the Government that the matter was to be taken up and that some results were to follow. But, we are going on as if this promise had never been made. This is an opportunity for the Minister of Finance to tell us if any such results are going to be brought about. Is there any cutting down in the pay sheet? Are there less employees in these different departments now than there were a year ago, or is there any hope that the promise that was made to Parliament will be implemented by a cutting down of the numbers? I should not be asking the new minister all these things but I have no mercy at all on the President of the Privy Council because he knows everything and he can tell us all these things.


Donald Sutherland: In reference to the remarks (made by the present leader of the Opposition-
Mr. MeKENZIE: No.


Donald Sutherland: The acting leader of the Opposition?
Mr. MeKENZIE: Not even that.


Donald Sutherland: I would say that I do not think he has assisted the Minister of Finance very much in cutting down the expenses of the Civil Service. It may be possible to cut down the pay-lists but it seems to me that a lot of those in the Civil Service remember quite distinctly that when this bonus was first adopted it was called a "war bonus:" Since the war is ended it is called a "bonus." I think we have a pretty fair intimation that it is the intention, with the classification, to make it a permanent part of the salaries of those in the Civil Service. I have a pretty fair idea as to what the members of the Government are up against living here in Ottawa and surrounded as they are with those who are in the Civil Service. I believe it is the duty of the members of this House to speak out frankly what they have in their minds. When we treat the civil servants as martyrs and declare that they are not receiving as much for their services as they should and that we should adopt an old age pension and a superannuation allowance for them, we do not set a very good example to the rest, of the country, especially at the present time. We know the hours of labour that we have fixed for those in the service and it has proven to be an example for every one

not in the service but engaged in other occupations to strive to reach. About a six and a half hour day is the maximum for the civil servants of this country. Reference has been made to the salaries that have been paid to the postmen and letter carriers of the cities and it is said that it is not sufficient to enable them to live as they should. That is one of the peculiarities of the Civil Service. People will almost break their necks to get in, and once they get in they seem to have a great deal of time at their disposal to agitate for an increase in their salaries. There should be no re-ason why those in the service who feel that they should do better elsewhere, or that they are not receiving, what they think they are worth should stay there. Why can they not get out of the service and take up some other occupation as other people do if they do not feel satisfied with the position which they have?
I fail to see why once persons are taken into the Civil Service of the country they should remain there continuously for the rest of their lives and should receive consideration that no other class in the community receives. That is certainly the case in regard to the hours of labour. It is a downright shame that members of this House who are here so late cannot go to a department until an hour in the morning when some people have nearly half a day's work completed. It is only then that you will find the civil servants filing into their offices.
I believe that if any other business in Canada, or any other country for that matter, were conducted as the public service of this country is conducted it would go, bankrupt within a year. ;I believe there should be a thorough re-organization of the whole public service of this country; that businesslike methods should be applied in connection with it; that a great deal of the overlapping which we find in the various public departments should be done away with; and that there should not be so much rivalry and jealousy between ministers as to whether some other department is encroaching on theirs or not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Start with the ministers.


Donald Sutherland: A new department of the Government has been organized very recently and T notice that the sum of nearly $1,000,000 is provided in the Estimates for it. We have now a condition of affairs in Canada that demands the close attention of

the people's representatives in Parliament. It may not be popular to say what I am now saying, but I am only expressing what I feel as to things that I have seen and noticed for many, many years, and T must say that I believe there is too much humbug in connection with this advocacy of the increasing of the salaries of these people who are in the service and are being kept there for the rest of their lives. If these people are not satisfied let them get out.
Reference has been made ' to the letter carriers. It does not require a tremendous lot of physical energy or brains to be a letter carrier. And yet what do you find? In similar occupations that require a very great deal more physical energy, and where there is competition for instance on an undertaking that is let by contract, you can secure more work for less than half the money that these people are receiving. That is quite apparent to all and to every1 one. Yet we are advocating passing of an item of over $12,500,000, without very much consideration and with more empty benches in this Chamber, possibly, than we usualy see. We have become so familiar with talking in millions, that we think these things ought to slip through without very much consideration. Now I have some .sympathy with the Minister of Finance who has recently taken over the work of that department. He has a heavy task on his hands and we ought to lend him all the assistance in our power to help cut down expenses and to put the finances of this country on a sound and stable basis. I do not believe that we are fair to the minister, or fair to the Government, in continually leading up to and harping on the idea that there should be increases all along the line. I believe that there should be dismissals, and dismissals by the thousands from the Civil Service, and that efficiency should he the tests and my opinion is that under the plan we have adopted in connection with the Civil Service Commission we are going to have a much more rotten system in the future than we have at the present time. I have no sympathy with this commission Dusmess as I have seen and as I judge it from the short experience I have had as a member of this House. 1 believe that the Government must be held responsible for the administration of the affairs of the country and that they cannot delegate that responsibility to any commission. Now, Sir, we purpose under this re-classification to enable the Civil Service Commis-

sion-acting on the advice of some people who have been hired at a very heavy expense to the country for a long time-to deal with the public service. We are kept in the dark as to what really should be done, and we are now continuing to the civil servants what we were told was merely a temporary war bonus. The war is ended but the bonus is not. We are now calling it a bonus and talking about making it a part of the permanent salaries of those in the Civil Service. People who enter the Civil Service of Canada do not need to think that they are occupying a superior position to those who are carrying on in other walks of life. Yet you would almost imagine they do think so from the attitude which the/ have adopted and the tactics which they are pursuing. I have a distinct recollection that about a year ago when Parliament met we had a strike in a certain branch of the Civil Service. The members of that branch thought they had the Government right by the throat and that it was impossible for the Government to do anything or to carry on. We found the Government endeavouring to get the printing in connection with the business of the House done outside of the Civil Service. But could that be managed? No, Sir. We have an organized body in the Civil Service to-day that are carrying on and are dictating to the Government and are getting away with it every day in the week. Have we arrived at a time when it is only organized bodies that are going to be considered, and that the great mass of the people of the country, who are unorganized, are not to receive any consideration? I do not like to speak in this way, it is not a pleasant task to me, but 'I am merely expressing my views as I feel them. I believe it is in the public interest, and it should >be of some value to the Government, for us to render them some assistance in withstanding these onslaughts that are being continually made upon them by organized bodies who are threatening to do this and to do that and to put the Government in a position practically of being at their mercy. And the Government are very much at their mercy unless the members of this House stand by and support them when they endeavour to do such things, instead of trying to make a little political capital out of these matters.


Frank S. Cahill: I wish to ask the minister in charge of the Bill whether slide masters in the Outside Service will be given this bonus?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would depend entirely, I should think, on a man's position and the amount of his regular pay. If he was in the regular employment of the Government, in the Outside Service, and was paid less than $1,200 he would get a bonus of $420. If he was the head of a househcild and unmarried he would get a bonus of $252.


Frank S. Cahill: I wish to draw the attention of the Finance Minister, in connection with this bonus question, to the case of Mr. John Mullen who has been slidemaster, under the Department of Public Works, at High Falls, on the Coulonge river. This man has been in the employ of the Government for twenty-one years, but has now been dismissed, with only one month's salary, after that long period of service. Will Mr. Mullen be entitled to any part of the bonus being paid under this vote?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The bonus is
payable monthly in addition to the regular salary. If a man was being paid a .salary he would get it; if he was paid by day's wage he would not get it. If the wages of the man to whom the hon. gentleman alludes as slidemaster were the ordinary rate of wages paid to the district he would get no bonus at all.


Frank S. Cahill: This man has been in the employ of the. Public Works Department for twenty-one years. He started at something like $400 a year, and I understand the wages he has lately been drawing on a yearly basis amounted to $900. He was dismissed because the works he was employed on were taken over and given to the lumbermen. He did not receive any notice what-ever, but was merely notified that he was to be paid one month's wages. I want to know, when a vote such as this is being obtained for the Inside and Outside Service, if the case of a man in such a position is . being taken into consideration. He has served the Government for twenty-one years and is now sixty-eight years of age. I therefore ask why he should be dismissed without any further notice than he received, and without any bonus or superannuation, or any consideration whatever, when we are voting the .sum of $12,500,000 to supplement the salaries of employees.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is not a pension plan; it is merely the appropriation of an amount to supplement monthly pay cheques. The slidemaster referred to, if employed on regular salary, should have got his bonus for last year. But this item has

nothing whatever to do with the question . of retiring officials or anything of that kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is a great deal
of force in the observations of the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), who points out that in view of the number of empty benches this evening we should not pass an item of $12,500,000; that opportunity should at least be given to every member of the House to express his opinion with regard to it. I am sorry that the minister does not appreciate the willingness of the experienced member for (South Oxford to give him some assistance in cutting down the heavy expenditure in connection with the Civil Service. Hon. members on this side learned long ago that it was like pouring water on the proverbial duck's back to make any such suggestions or present any such philosophy to the present aggregation composing the Government, and we have to some extent given it up. I am glad that the member for South Oxford, who4 has a right to expect that his representations will receive more consideration at the hands of the Government than ours do, has taken this role; and few members in the House can present their views more logically than he can present his. I hope, therefore, that the Government, while they may be disposed to ignore the suggestions made by hon. members on this side, will not take the responsibility of refusing to pay attention to the observations of such an important supporter as the member for South Oxford.
I suggest that the Minister of Finance [DOT](Sir Henry Drayton) become serious for a moment. The amount involved in this item is quite a substantial one. It was not brought up until after ten o'clock this evening, when many members, particularly on his own side of the House, had left the Chamber, possibly having no idea that a money vote was to be placed before the committee for consideration. The leader of the Opposition is not here. We have acting as leader the exMinister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), a very capable gentleman, but the leader himself is not here, and the general attendance in the House is not large. I think, therefore, that it would be a prudent and gracious act on the part of the minister to let this item stand until hon. members shall have had more opportunity of giving it consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very grateful to hon. members for their assistance and support;.we need a lot of it, too. I welcome it whether it comes from South Oxford or

from the Atlantic coast. There is no doubt that we ought to economize; that we have to economize wherever we can. But there are some places where you cannot economize-except, perhaps, on matters of time. The hon. member has referred to the leader of the Opposition. I understand that this matter was taken up with the leader of the Opposition and that he did not think there was any . reason why it should not be taken up and disposed of this evening. After all, there is nothing that we do not know in connection with this matter. We all know that the cost of living in going up instead of going down. We all know that we are not enlarging the bonus which was given last year. We all know what the basis of that bonus ^as. We all know that this is nothing but the payment of a bonus having regard to salaries of employees fixed by statute. We know also that these salaries, whether fixed by the reclassification or previously, were fixed when the cost of living'was very different from what it now is and when payment for services in outside employments was on a very different basis from what it now is. This is not a permanent matter, as some hon. members seem to think. The payment of the amount made up by the salary as fixed plus the bonus would be permanent if the classification were based upon the total of the two. It is thought to be cheaper to keep the salaries down as much as possible and to continue this bonus until the cost of living drops, as we all hope it will. It is much easier to stop the payment of a bonus than to reduce salaries which have once been increased. Personally, I should be only too delighted to accede to the request of the hon. member that the consideration of this question be postponed. But a lot of cheques are due to be sent out to-morrow, and if no real object is to be served by delay it would be a great pity for hon. gentlemen to hold them up.
Mr. tOQPP: I do not think the minister will suggest that hon. gentlemen on this side are holding up this item.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all.


Mr. OOPP:: But he must realize that the item is one of considerable importance and involves a large sum of money. My hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland), in a careful and well-reasoned address has suggested many things to the Government that they might well take into consideration. He suggested that a new department had been established by the Government which he characterized as being unnecessary, if not useless. He

did not tell us what department that was; it might be well for the minister to give us some information with regard to it and to say whether he feels that, as the member for iSouth Oxford has suggested, that department is unnecessary and useless. I do not quite agree with all that the member for South Oxford said; nevertheless he furnished a good deal of food for thought. Of course, we now talk in millions where a few years ago we talked in thousands, and possibly on that account the amount of this item does not seem so large. But $12,500,000 is a very large sum of money, and I feel that the committee should have some further information with regard to the matters put before the Government and the Finance Minister by the member for South Oxford.


Mr. J. F. REID:: I should like to take
issue with the hon. member for Oxford [South (Mr. Sutherland) who seems to be pf opinion that because the war is over, the war bonus should cease. The hon. member should understand that in spite of the fact that the war is over, fhe cost of living is still going up. How in the name of common sense should the war bonus cease while the cost of living is going up? The war .bonus was, as I understand it, introduced so as not to disturb the scale of wages. This is the principle that is adopted by all large commercial companies. As regards wages paid to civil servants, I am of opinion, from the few inquires that I have made, that civil servants do not receive the same standard of wages which commercial companies pay, and if we wish to get efficiency coupled with economy in our civil service, we must pay more wages in qrder to get the best employees. If any commercial company were to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) and discharge their employees and continue to pay wages below the ordinary scale of wages being paid by other companies, that commercial company would soon be obliged to go out of business; they would have no employees. Economy then must be accompanied by efficiency. I hope our new Minister of Finance will introduce into his department, at least, some reforms along the lines that have been suggested. There is only one way to get economy coupled with efficiency, and that is to get the very best employees possible to do the necessary [work and to pay them a scale of wages equal to that paid by commercial companies.


Mr. LEGER:: Will keepers of lights on
the sea shore be entitled to this bonus?
[They are employees who receive smaller pay for their services than any other employees in the Civil Service. Are they going to be considered, or not?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sorry to say I cannot mention the names of the different classes of employees that will get the bonus. The general rule, as the hon. gentleman will remember, is this, that if an employee is a salaried employee, that is, he is somebody that is working for the Government and giving his whole time to the Government "and is not engaged upon other work, he gets the bonus, whether he works Inside or Outside, so that if the lightkeeper to whom the hon. gentleman refers falls within that class, he will get a bonus.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Many of these men spend about eight or nine months of their time in the service, and they receive from $160 to about $300. They received this when the cost of living was very low, and they are still receiving the same salary without any increase. Some of them are far from their homes on islands or beaches or places like that, and I think they should receive either an increase in salary or a bonus.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: There is another class of civil servants that has not received any bonus so far and these men are in about the same class as the lightkeepers. There are on some islands, in particular the quarantine stations, telegraph offices that are open about nine months during the year, and telegraph officers are on those islands during that period. In the winter they live in their homes on the islands where there is practically nothing for them to do in the winter time, so that they are really devoting all their time to the service. I do not understand why last year they did not receive any bonus at all. I suppose this year, when reclassification is reconsidered, such an officer, who gives nine months of his time to the 'service and who is let out in the winter when there is nothing for him to do, will receive a bonus to keep him going.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I should like tcf call the
attention of the minister to a class of public servants who have been sadly neglected in the past, a hard-working class, a class which works more hours a day than any other public servant and which I think ought to be recognized either by way of bonus or by an increased indemnity. I refer to the members of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am quite serious. This may not be the right time to bring the

matter up; but on another occasion I may be out of order, and now that we have such a large number of members present, it might be well to bring the question up. I think members of this House are entitled to an increased indemnity, and above all they are entitled to exemption from income tax if nothing else can be done for us. If that cannot be done, we are entitled to deduct from our income tax returns the amount of our actual expenses incurred in Ottawa. As regards that, I think I will have the general support of the committee. With regard to the question of increased indemnity I shall have pretty general support of the members, not in this House-in the lobbies, at home, and possibly amongst their friends, but hardly in public. I wish, however, to bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and 1 should like him to inform the members of the committee if, in arranging their budget for the coming year, members may count on a substantial increase in their indemnity, as a bonus.


Mr. STEIN:: I wish to join with the hon. /member (Mr. Leger) who spoke a little while ago in favour of the lighthouse keepers. I have several of these public servants in my constituency, and I understand from the minister that in order to receive a share of the proposed bonus, they must come within certain regulations. I understand that one of those regulations is that they must devote all their time to the public service.
I know for a fact that before the war, and before the cost of living had reached its present level, those men at least in that portion of the St. Lawrence opposite my county had to report for duty in the spring on the first of April, and they closed their lighthouses on the first of December. They are now bound to open their lighthouses on the first of April instead of the 12th, and have to' remain at work as late as the 23rd of December, and I understand that they are liable to be called1 up for service' at any time during the year. I do not know if* they would be eligible to share in the bonus, but at all events I would suggest that as they are so poorly paid they should be allowed to participate in it.


Donald Sutherland: I notice by the
Public Accounts, which I have in my hand, that for the year ending March 31, 1919, at the little farm the Government are running on the outskirts of this city the amount paid for farm labour was $120,525.44. Can the minister give me any idea as to what portion of that is made up of the war bonus?

I refer to the Experimental Farm. I also notice that on the farms in the province of Quebec some $71,000 odd was spent for farm labour. That does not include foremen or any of the men drawing the high salaries, but is for the actual farm labour. I am not surprised at the hon. member (Mr. Reid) taking exception to reducing salaries when the cost of living is going up, bu? in view of the fact that the farm labour on the land being farmed by the Government costs about five times as much as thfe proceeds from that land. I am inclined to think that if that system is going to be applied throughout the whole country the cost of living will go a great deal higher than it is at present.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY:: Will the rural
mail carriers share in this bonus?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The rural mail carriers are paid under contract. This bonus merely applies to those drawing salaries which we ourselves fix. What is being done in connection with the rural mail carriers is this: In cases where they think 'they have tendered too low and are' not being sufficiently paid the Post Office, on request of the mail carrier, cancels the contract and gives him a chance to tender again along with any other tenderers there *may be.


Donald Sutherland: 
Edmond Proulx: I do not think there is a class of public servant who are more deserving that the rural mail carriers. My hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) has said that they take these contracts at competitive prices. More than that, if their tender is considered too high by the department the contract is not given. The department sets a limit of so much per mile, I think it is now $30 per mile, and they will not give a contract at a higher price. The mail carriers have to provide their own horse and rig, and it must be remembered that the price of feed has almost doubled in the last few years. These men certainly deserve an increase, and if they are not to participate in the bonus, they should be given a percentage increase on their contracts of at least 33J per cent.


John Wilfred Kennedy: I should like to point out the great discrepancy that exists between the remuneration given to the rural mail carriers and to the letter carriers. It has been stated on the floor of this House that the letter carriers may receive a maximum of $1,260, and on top of that a bonus approximating $400, which would bring their total remuneration up to about $1,600. The rural mail carriers, on the other hand, are doing their work for anything between $500 and $900, and in many cases they have to supply two horses and a rig. They receive no bonus whatever. I notice that the minister takes refuge behind the statement that bonuses are only granted to those who are receiving fixed salaries, and that the mail carriers work under contract. That is perhaps true, but the Post Office Department are practically setting the salaries received by the rural mail carriers, Although they advertise for tenders in almost all cases, any post office inspector who feels that a tender is to high so informs the tenderer, offering him a smaller amount. In most cases this is the way the agreement is made. The work is not actually done by tender. I wish to point out the great difference there is between the salaries received by the letter carriers and by these men who are doing much more arduous work.


Lucien Cannon: I wish to say a word or two in support of remarks made by several members in connection with rural mail carriers. In my county contracts were given a few years ago at low prices, and mail carriers discovered afterwards that they could not fulfil such contracts with profit and they could not afford to lose money with the Government. The minister told us a moment ago that in cases of that kind new tenders weTe called for and contracts were given at higher prices. My experience in my own constituency is that whenever a price was asked which showed a reasonable profit for the mail carrier the inspector would generally interfere and see to it that the contract was not given to that tenderer. In this way we generally had poor service. I think that if these bonuses are to be given to the civil servants on the principle that the cost of living is much higher now than before the war they should apply to every one including those in the rural constituencies. The rural mail carriers should also share in the grant, and if they did I think there would be ft great improvement in the service.


Donald Sutherland: What portion of
the $400,000 paid for farm labour on the experimental farms is war bonus?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think any of that would be war bonus. Farm labourers should be employed at the current rate of wages. If they are taken on

at the current rate of wages there should be no bonus at all but, of course, if they are not taken on at the current rate they get a bonus.


Lucien Cannon: To continue my remarks in regard to the rural mail carriers, I would point out to the Minister of Finance the fact that very generous subsidies have been given to steamship lines to carry mails. Now, if the Government have the means to give as high subsidies as we are giving to the steamship lines, I think they can afford to 'be generous to our rural constituencies and accord them somewhat better treatment than they now receive.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman will observe that those subsidies have been considerably reduced.


Lucien Cannon: Very good news,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Something has been
said


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hon. members had
better be patient; this is an important item, and if any hon. member thinks that twelve and a half million dollars is not worth talking about he can retire. We on this side regard this item as one of great importance, and as we are here to represent the people we are prepared to put our views before the minister. Hon. members may regard these things as being too trivial to engage their consideration, but I am not one of that class and I am willing to stay here and talk to the minister about the business of the country. I was about to say, in connection with the system of lighthouses in this country, that there is in my riding a very important island called St. Paul's, on which there is a little colony of lighthouse keepers with their families. These people cannot by any possibility engage in any other kind of work, being fourteen or fifteen miles from the shore, and the island being very small there is no kind of industry. I should like to know if the men who are so occupied on St. Paul's island will come within the operation of the bonus, I do not know what their salaries are. Can the minister inform the committee what is the minimum salary that entitles one to the bonus?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The smaller the salary the bigger the bonus, so long as the man is an employee of the Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood the President of the Privy Council to say that there was a place where it stopped.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Upwards, not
downwards.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think downwards,
too.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No; the smaller the salary the bigger the bonus.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then I must have misunderstood the President of the Council, because the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) raised the point that a customs officer getting only $250 would not participate in the bonus because his salary was too small.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Because his was only part employment.


Lucien Cannon: The minister told us that a matter of great importance was economy of time, and I think he referred indirectly to the delay that might be experienced in passing this item. I do not wish to obstruct the minister in this legislation, but I wish to inform him that this Supplementary Estimate was brought down only to-day, and I got it in my mail only to-night just before coming to the House. We discussed several Bills in the evening, and this matter was brought up at half past ten. It is now five minutes to twelve and we have discussed dor less than an hour and a half an item involving twelve millions and a half. So that I do not think we have wasted any time as the Minister of Finance seemed to imply a short while ago.


Donald Sutherland: With reference to the Experimental Farm employees, I notice . that a bonus of $200 has been paid in almost every instance in connection with the amounts paid to these men ranging from $800 to $1,200, but the bonus does not vary with the salary. While I am on my feet I may say, with reference to the rural mail carriers, that in passing this item, which provides for a bonus to all others in the Civil Service, we ought to have some assurance that something will be done for these men. Their condition is certainly deplorable, and they have been fully expecting the Government to show them the same consideration as is given those in other branches of the public service. There is no gainsaying the fact that these men do their work for less than one half what is received by others who do easier work; and the fact that there is competition in this branch of the service and none in the other is no justification for keeping these men down. It is true that in many instances they are men who do not attach any great value to their orwn service. Frequently

they are crippled in some way and are anxious to earn a few dollars in order to keep themselves. I think we should really have some assurance from the minister, before putting this vote through, that the Government will endeavour to make some provision for these people under the conditions that exist to-day.


Thomas Vien: Does the Order in Council that the minister has read providing for the distribution of this bonus apply to the distribution this yean or is it the one that applied to the distribution last year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is the Order in
Council on -which the distribution was made last year. The Minister of Finance has stated that the same general principles would govern the distribution this year except that there were certain modifications under consideration, one of which my hon. friend himself brought to the attention of the committee.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the Order in Council that applies to this item or to the bonus of last year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Order in Council providing for the distribution of last year.


William Stevens Fielding: Of the year 1919?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Of the fiscal year 1919-20. The same general principle will apply to this distribution, although it will be subject to modification.


William Stevens Fielding: But this vote is for the year which has passed, 1919-20?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Np, it is for 1920-21. .


Thomas Vien: I understand that the regulations for the distribution of the bonus for this year are not finally drafted.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Thomas Vien: I would like to know undeT what regulations this distribution is going to be made before we are called upon to vote that amount en bloc.


Lucien Cannon: The Minister of Finance declared that the cheques were practically ready.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I said, or at least what I intended to say, was that we were proceeding on the old basis but that the old basis might be changed in a few details. We have prepared our cheques under last year's Order in Council and on the old basis.	.

,

*


Lucien Cannon: But they are the cheques for this year's bonus?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, it would be for this year, but the cheques cannot go out unless this is authorized.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a practice that should not be tolerated. The practice of distributing money that has not been voted should not be tolerated by the new minister. The item says that the money shall be distributed under regulations yet to be framed. Up to this date the Governor in Council [DOT]could not make any regulations in regard to these particular items. They might draft them, but they would have no effect. We have been told that regulations are to be made for the distribution of this item which the House has not yet passed. Why does the minister say that before this item has been passed regulations have been made providing for the distribution of this large amount of money and that the cheques are ready to go out? That is riding roughshod over the principles and privileges of Parliament. What is the use of going through the farce of asking us to pass this vote if the cheques are made out, the distribution is made and we are not consulted about it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The cheques will only go out and the distribution will only be made when the House gives its assent. We are simply ready to do it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It should not be done in advance. The regulations should be here as well as the item so that we will know on what principle this distribution is to be made. There are two sets of wage rates with which we could deal. There was the rate of wages that the civil servants received before the Civil Service Act came into force. There is a new scale of wages which has come into force since the first of April, 1919. The old regulations were made under the old rate of pay, but now we do not know whether this distribution is to be made under the new system or the old. Will the minister tell us? The distribution of last year took the present Civil Act rate of wages. Do they now take that same 12 p.m. rate of wages as a basis for the distribution of the rate of wages as provided by the new Civil Service Act?


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I understand it-I- may be entirely wrong-the bonus is paid on the ordinary salary cheque. These cheques have to be prepared. If the bonus was not written into them it would mean that separate cheques would have to be

provided. It saves a lot of work to put both the bonus and the salary upon the same cheque. It is much better to write out one cheque.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Which scale of wages has been taken as a basis of distribution, the old salaries or the new salaries under the Civil Service Act? The different classes of salaries would provide a different basis for the distribution of this vote. I am asking the minister which of these two classes is taken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I understand it the recommendation of the Commission is based upon the new classification. It would have to be based upon the new classification, according to the judgment of the Commission or the amount to be provided this year would require to have been greater.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why was this item not in the Main Estimates? It was evidently well understood that there was going to be a bonus when the general Estimates were prepared?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole question has been a matter of very anxious debate. If I could have got rid of the bonus altogether the bonus would have been got rid of. If I had been able to see any fair way of dropping it, it would have been dropped. It has been a matter of very anxious debate. It was considered only two days ago by Council.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: History is repeating itself. We were told in this House last year by the hon. member for Regina (Mr Cowan) that he and a few of his colleagues forced the Minister of Finance to do certain things; for instance, to drive the axe into the tariff as effectively as possible. I see that the forcing business is going on with the new minister just as well. He wanted to do certain things when he brought down his main Estimates, but since then he has been forced to do something else that he had no intention .of doing. In view of the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) that we ought to help the minister, I think we should help him to some stilts for his backbone.


Lucien Cannon: Would the minister say if the amount of the bonus granted this year is the same as that granted last yegr?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the same as last year.


Lucien Cannon: If the House is asked to vote the same amount as last year how

does the minister reconcile this with the declaration of his desire to economize?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Replying first to the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) I do not know that the ktilts which he is thinking of would help very much. I am learning about matters all the time, and I have learned one thing, that in connection with salaries and the cost of living it would be an injustice to civil servants to withhold the bonus. It was because of finding out the fact that an injustice would have been worked had the bonus been withheld that I am taking the position that I do to-night.
With respect to the question of my hon. friend (Mr. Cannon) as to the matter of economy, I think the hon. gentleman will agree that the cost of living this year is higher than it was last year. If he does not agree, I am sorry to say I am afraid the facts all show that the cost of living this year is higher than last, and that there has been an appreciation of some ten per cent. Now the re-classification of salaries is not on to-day's values; it is based on a lower standard of living than we have today, thus requiring the addition of this bonus to bring it up to a proper proportion.


Lucien Cannon: I want to be well understood by the minister; I would not like the impression to be left in his mind that I am opposed to giving a bonus to the civil servants. For some reason or other-it may be the fault of the Government or the fault of somebody else-living is much more expensive in Canada now than it used to be, there is no douibt about that. Should salaries be increased, dr bonuses given and salaries remain at the same position as they were a few years ago? That is a question for the Government to settle and not for me to decide. However, I put the question to the minister as to whether the bonus given this year was the same as that given last year. His answer in the affirmative proves that his claim to economy has not been carried out, because if the total bonus is the same as last year how can the Government have economized? I know personally that some employees have been dismissed from the service-lots of them; for instance in the Printing Bureau, in the Militia Department, and in the Naval Service. The number of employees in these departments has decreased. Some of them have been dismissed, and others have resigned. How does the minister explain to the committee that notwithstanding these resignations and these das-

missals, the country to-day will pay the same amount as it paid last year, and *despite the fact that each individual is not getting any more, because the basis for the bonus will be the same this yearbarring a few details of no importance-as it was last year? I would like the minister to give that explanation before this vote is passed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The answer is very simple. The hon. member for Lotbin-iere (Mr. Vien) raised a point which I thought some hon. gentlemen, at least, agreed with. His point was that during the whole course of the war nothing had been done for the man in the technical service, the engineer. There is the man who is getting between $3,000 and $5,000. It is because the question of looking after that very class is under consideration that the amount was put at the figure that it now is, but there is no intention-I would like to quiet the hon. gentleman's mind upon that score-oif increasing the individual bonus.


Lucien Cannon: Will the minister tell the committee what amount has been laid aside to be distributed as a bonus to those people who have not received a bonus in former years, and what amount has been laid aside to distribute as a bonus to the employees who enjoyed a bonus last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand the amount that is under consideration in connection with the extra class is $240.


Frank S. Cahill: How much will that amount to in round figures?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have only a rough estimate.


Frank S. Cahill: Hofw can the minister make a rough estimate when he does not know how many there will be to benefit?
'Sir HENRY DRAYTON: This is not a rough estimate by the Government; it is-based on a report from the Civil Service Commission. The Commission have gone over the matter and discussed it. It is their figures that we have. I could not, I am sorry to say, tell exactly how many there are in the class mentioned by the hon. member for Lotbiniere as against the number in the other class.


Lucien Cannon: Where is the report to
which the minister refers? could it be laid before the committee? It is a very important question and I think the committee should be enlightened on that point.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The cheques must have been made out from some list. I think it would be valuable to have that list on Hansard. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) told us that the maximum salary for which a bonus was given was $3,000. I think he told us that the men getting $3,000 received no bonus but that the bonus was applicable in an increasing degree as the salaries fell below that amount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As the matter now stands all bonuses cease at $3,000. At its maximum the bonus applies to low salaries below $1,200 and then scales off. The proposition still under consideration is as to whether or not the bonus should be continued from a $3,000 to a $5,000 salary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The cheques are not
yet made out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Mr. GOULD:: I have been so accustomed to talking in terms of fifty cents and a dollar, and receiving such scathing denunciation from members on the Government side, that this question of a vote of $12,500,000 is almost beyond my comprehension It seems to me that I have a grand opportunity to give a lesson in economics to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I would ask the minister how he reconciles the bonus system for the mail carrier in the urban sections with the treatment meted out to the mail carrier in the rural district?
If I understood him correctly, the minister said that the cost of living had not materially increased. I wish to point out that the cost of material has very much increased during the last year, particularly to the rural mail carrier. Feed for the animals that have been driving on the trails this winter has cost much more than it formerly cost. They are paying more for their oats; they are paying $60 to $70 per ton for hay which last year they bought for $20 and $21-in no case more than $26. These rural mail carriers on our western plains have had two months more travelling than usual this winter in heavy snow, heavier than usual in the West- and they have asked me if they could not under some arrangement receive extra pay. They did not suggest the manner in which they should receive it; I am satisfied that they are prepared to accept it whether it is given to them in the form of increased salary or in the form of bonus. In any case, they are justly entitled to some consideration. I have also received communications from persons in that country complaining about

the rentals paid by the Dominion Government for the buildings in which the business of the Post Office Department is carried on. When we are voting this sum of $12,500,000, we should provide that each employee should get his or her equitable share of the bonus. I wish to put myself on record as being in favour of giving to these rural mail carriers their just share of this appropriation, because to my positive knowledge they have, through no fault of their own but through act of Providence, had more difficult conditions to work under than lias ever before been their experience.


Lucien Cannon: The minister has told us that the reason why this item is not in the ordinary Estimates is that it had given rise to anxious debate. Where? It could not have given rise to anxious debate on this side of the House; the anxious debate must have been in Council. Judging from the , attendance of -Government members, they do not seem to show much interest in the matter. I gather from the remarks of the minister that the debate in council was an anxious one. Why so? Judging by the warmth of the minister's remarks I assume that he as Minister of Finance was opposed to this bonus; that he as the man who is best posted on the subject of our financial condition was not in favour of it. But other views prevailed, and the minister comes down before the committee to-night and asks us to vote $12,500,000. I feel tonight as the minster felt up to this afternoon; I am not in favour of voting $12,500,000 unless I am convinced that we can afford to do so. I certainly shall not vote for the adoption of this item unless I am shown conclusively how the money will be spent. I do not want that money to be squandered. I do not want that money to be , wasted. Enough millions have been wasted by the present Government. During the war it was easy for gentlemen on the other side to say that they wanted to spend so many millions of dollars for the welfare of the country and the defence of the Empire. That argument is worn out. The war is over, we are back to times of peace; we have come back to -constitutional practice. Gentlemen on the other side will be called to account for every penny that they spend in Canada. This item provides that $12,500,000 shall be spend in accordance with regulations passed by the Governor in Council. That may be sufficient for the committee as a whole but it is not sufficient information for me. I want more than that. I want the Government to do as regards this item what they have to do [Mr. Gould.1
when the bring down the ordinary Estimates. When an item for $1,000 is asked by the President of the Council (Mr. Kow: ell) or by the Minister of Immigration and -Colonization (Mr. Calder) we have a right to ask them to tell us exactly how every dollar will be spent. I shall vote for this item only when I know how the appropriation will be distributed. The minister says that a certain amount has been laid aside to be distributed among the employees who receive more than $3,000 in case the Cabinet should decide to give them a bonus. I want to know whether or not the Cabinet have decided to give them a bonus. If they have, what will be the amount? How many dollars of this $12,500,000 will be given to these employees? We are not children in this House. We represent the people. This country is overburdened with debts- The Minister of Finance -does not know where to find the money to meet the needs of the public service. Every week he is expected to make his Budget speech and explain how we are going to meet necessary expenses and conduct the ordinary affairs of the country, but the Budget is delayed. The minister is pondering that matter; he has been doing it for months. The committee should not vote an item of this importance until the Government gives us the necessary information. What will be the amount given to those who receive salaries exceeding $3,000. What will be the amount given to the Outside Service? What will be the amount given to the Inside Service? Will employees outside of those receiving $3,000 a year receive bonuses who did not receive them last year? It is only fair to ask that that information should be given to the committee. I do not know how the other members of the committee feel about it, but I am sick and tired of voting items without having any information,-of signing blank cheques for the Government. These officials who sign cheques without knowing whether or not the money would be voted insult Parliament and show gross negligence of constitutional practice. It is about time that these employees should know that the masters of the public exchequer of Canada are the members of the House of Commons; not officials of the Government. So far as I am concerned, unless I have the necessary information, I will oppose this item.


Frank S. Cahill: I thought the minister
was hunting a few minutes ago for information as to what amount of this appropriation is to be applied on bonuses to the people mentioned iby my hon. friend (Mr. APRIL 15, 1920
Cannon). Surely, the Government are not serious in asking Parliament to pass in a lump sum this item of $12,500,000 which they placed on the Table to-day, without stating what proportion of it is to be applied as mentioned by my hon. <friend or what policy the Government have decided upon, or without any further information as to what the Government are prepared to give at the present time. That is most unreasonable; it is certainly unfair to members of this committee; it is unfair to the Opposition, and it is unfair to the Minister of Finance for him to come down to this House and show that he does not know any more about his Estimates than to say that he does not know what this amount is to be expended for. The minister should surely be in a position to furnish us with the information before he asks that this item be passed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like
very much to meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to treat this vote just like the ordinary Estimates and simply vote one- sixth in the same way as is done with the ordinary Estimates in order to carry oh. That leaves the whole thing open for any information hon. members desire to give or any further remarks they desire to make.


Charles Adolphe Stein: Will a loan be necessary to cover the payment of this bonus?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that
question has already been ruled out of order, firmly, definitely and finally.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The Chairman has not
done so to-night.	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: While in the other
Estimates we were asked to pass only one-sixth, I understand that in this case the minister has asked for the whole amount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: For one-sixth.


William Stevens Fielding: The suggestion he makes to conform with the rule and ask for one-sixth and thus leave the matter open, might be a fair solution of the matter.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In case the one-sixth is
passed to-night, is it possible that we shall have further discussion at some other time on the remaining five-sixths?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When this item comes up again, I suppose the minister will have that list and general information as to the balance of the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I move that this item be amended by inserting the words "one-sixth of the" . at the beginning and by substituting for the amount $12,500,000," the amount "$2,083,333.33."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	.
Item as amended agreed to. ,
Resolution reported, read the first and *second times and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton, Minister of Finance, the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1921, the sum of $2,083,333.33 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Resolution reported, read the first and second times, and concurred in.



SUPPLY BILL-INTERIM VOTE.

[Stage Direction]
*Sir HENRY DRAYTON thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 67, granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public services for the financial year ending March 31, 1921
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, and read the third time, and passed.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. Friday
Friday, April 16, 1920.